The Wittenberg Guild, est. 2004

Why I Use Extensive Notes In Sermon-Delivery

2009-04-10T19:33:00.009-04:00

See pp. 27-29 (Chapter 7, Notes & Delivery) of the following work for my answer:

http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/preachword.pdf

A Quote from Charles Spurgeon Regarding John Gill

2009-01-28T15:12:00.003-05:00

"My eminent predecessor, Dr. [John] Gill, was told, by a certain member of his congregation who ought to have known better, that if he published his book, The Cause of God and Truth, he would lose some of his best friends, and that his income would fall off. The doctor said, 'I can afford to be poor, but I cannot afford to injure my conscience;' and he has left his mantle as well as his chair in our vestry."

--

[C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography , 2 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1973) 2:477]

Against Dispensationalism

2009-01-20T16:38:00.003-05:00

http://www.againstdispensationalism.com/95theses.shtml

--

(from the link . . .)

What follows should not be interpreted to mean that NiceneCouncil.com nor the historic Bible believing church would place every dispensationalist outside of the Christian faith. We acknowledge that most are dedicated to the foundational orthodox doctrines of Christianity. Unlike the sixteenth century dispute over the doctrine of justification, this is an in-house discussion, a debate among evangelical Christians. We recognize and treasure all born again believers who operate within a dispensational framework as brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, we must remember that Paul loved his fellow apostle Peter and esteemed him the senior and more honored of the two of them. Nevertheless, when it came to a point of theology that had profound implications for the purity and health of the Church, Paul was constrained by his love for Christ and the Truth publicly to withstand Peter to his face. (Galatians 2:11)

Therefore, because we believe that dispensationalism has at least crippled the Church in her duty of proclaiming the gospel and discipling the nations, and out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed in a series of videos written and produced by NiceneCouncil.com under the title The Late Great Planet Church. And as iron sharpens iron we request that every Christian, congregation, and denomination discuss and debate these issues. By the grace of our great Sovereign let us engage in this debate with an open mind and an open Bible. Like the Bereans nearly two thousand years ago, let us “search the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things are so.”

Christian Water Baptism in the New Testament

2009-01-14T13:26:00.007-05:00

In the New Testament (NT), there are 71 references to various forms of the word "baptize" (i.e., baptism, baptized, baptismal, etc.). Of those 71 references, only 19 passages refer to Christian water baptism. I distinguish Christian water baptism (or, believer's baptism) from other NT usages of baptism because there are different types of baptisms mentioned in the NT . . . the baptism of John . . . baptism of trial . . . baptism of the Holy Spirit, etc.

Out of the 19 passages that deal with believer's baptism, 11 are simply indicative references to people being baptized; that is, there is no theological significance attached to those 11 indicative verses, as they only tell us that a baptism has, is, or will be taking place.

So, here we are. Out of the the 19 passages in the NT that are relevant to believer's baptism, we are left with only 8 verses from which we can deduce any theological/doctrinal significance.

--

to be continued . . .

Uncle Jesse Duplantis vs. Your Intellect, Parts 1 and 2

2009-01-13T15:17:00.013-05:00

If you can stomach three and a half minutes of being intellectually assaulted via exegetical gymnatics, take the time to watch the following clip, where health/wealth/prosperity preacher Jesse Duplantis denies that the Tower of Babel was ever built.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_uKZhtntkk&feature=related

Or how about his claim that you choose when you live and you choose when you die (since life and death are in the power of your tongue and not God's)?? This one's only 45 seconds long, for the weak of stomach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgrScaBSOHg

Now, as my Dad says, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something's wrong there . . . something's bad wrong. What's sad is that hosts of professing believers follow hard after such false teachers. What's worse is to hear those misguided folks defend such a heretic. Sad, sad, sad!

How long shall we put up with this dangerous rubbish? How long, Church?? We have lost our minds when we cannot call a spade a spade. Are we too ignorant, lacking good discernment? Are we cowards who know better, but who are content to keep our mouths shut so as not to offend. We can do much better than this! It’s simply another example of Uncle Jesse hurdling sound exegesis and good reason to hold to his presuppositions (i.e., the health, wealth, and prosperity false gospel).

On the Synthetic Health, Wealth, & Prosperity Gospel . . .

2009-01-09T15:08:00.019-05:00

"The LORD sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts." (1 Samuel 2:7)

--

Ideas have consequences! Put another way, how you think is inextricably woven together with how you act. We are experiencing this in Technicolor during the subprime mortgage meltdown. Prosperity preachers have turned tens of thousands of devotees into willing dupes for predatory lenders by convincing them that the Bible promised them homes they didn’t work for full of good things they didn’t buy.

Faith mega-star Rod Parsley is a prime offender. With reckless abandon he exhorts followers to experience abundance and luxury as a means of producing its reality:

"Some of you better get ready to drive around in neighborhoods where you never thought you’d be able to afford to live. Some of you better go down to that Lexus and Mercedes dealership and just sit down in one of those things with that leather all over it."

If asked to give a reason for the hope of the luxury that lies within them, Parsley simply instructs followers to respond, "Well, I’m just feeling out what my Father is going to give me . . . I heard a word from the man of God, and when I obeyed that word, it unleashed that anointing into my life, and I’m on my way to houses I didn’t build, full of good things I didn’t have to buy."

Together with a host of prosperity preachers ranging from Paula White to T.D. Jakes and Joyce Meyer such prosperity preachers have created a crisis in Christianity and the culture that I could scarcely have imagined two decades ago. –Hank Hanegraaff

After reading this, I was reminded of the following word - a biblical admonition/rebuke - from Pastor John Piper (take a look):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGzqIcbvARw

A Recommended Essay on Eschatology

2008-12-15T17:16:00.007-05:00

http://www.cts-florida.org/eschatologyconfusion.htm

A Small Note on Belief/Faith

2008-04-28T10:44:00.005-04:00

In a recent conversation with Dr. John Robbins, he provided me with the following information regarding the nature of belief/faith:

"There is only one Greek word in the NT for belief: pistis.

It would have been far less confusing if the English translators had used only belief, not faith, in translating the Greek. If the translators had used one word, not two, to translate one Greek word, it probably would have been less confusing. The translators should not have used 'faith,' with its Latin, not Greek, roots.

Trust or confidence (which has 'fide' right there in the middle) are best understood as synonyms for belief. They are not parts or components as many say, equalling 1/3 of faith. If I trust a person, I believe what he says; if I believe him, I trust him.

All examples of belief in the Bible are examples of understanding and assent."

--

Recommended:

1. What Is Saving Faith? (Gordon H. Clark)

2. http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/demonic-theology/

Belief/Faith, pt. 1 of 2

2008-04-28T10:32:00.003-04:00

I believe that understanding + assent (both intellectual processes) = faith/belief. It's that simple, in my opinion.

If I ask you whether or not you believe the following proposition - 2+2=4 - and you said yes, what are you telling me? You are telling me that 1) you understand what I mean by that statement - you understand numbers, basic addition, basic mathematical equations, etc.; & 2) you agree that the proposition in question is true - you assent to it. When these two things are present, it can be rightly said that belief/faith is present there. You can't believe what you do not understand, and even though you may understand something (say, Communism), it still cannot be said that you believe it if assent is not present.

As for saving faith in particular, which I believe is in view, this would have to do with believing certain "salvation-type" propositions . . . believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, etc.

This is no easy believism, for faith/belief is a gift from God to be dispensed in His timing to those who He has been pleased to elect unto salvation. Stated another way, assent is a gift from God, and the only reason as to why some believe is because God actively causes them to do so. Many miss that faith is actually of God, but take a close look:

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own
doing; it is the gift of God, Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may
boast. Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Acts 16:13 On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

An additional point . . . if you believe that 2+2=4, then you won't write down 5 when balancing your checkbook. The point? What you believe necessarily translates into your actions. Somewhat analogous to that - saving faith results in a changed walk/life (see James 2:14-26). If someone claims to believe 'X', yet his lifestyle pattern is consistently contrary to that, then it is likely that they do not believe what they think they believe. Self-deception is strong and commonplace. So, you can believe that you believe something but your actions reveal that you probably don't!?!?

Jam 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not
have works? Can that faith save him?

Now, outward actions that conform to Biblical precepts - in themselves - are not a sure sign of saving faith (they could arise from impure motivations), but true saving faith necessarily results in true outward transformation.

Belief/Faith, pt. 2 of 2

2008-04-28T10:00:00.003-04:00

From Vincent Cheung's Systematic Theology, p. 193-194:

However, there are conclusive reasons to reject this distinction between assent and trust, and instead to affirm that faith consists only of knowledge and assent.

First, the Bible does not exclusively use the "believe in" type of language when referring to faith. For example, Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6). The verse demands that one who comes to God must give assent to two propositions. He must believe that (1) "God exists," and that (2) "God rewards those who earnestly seek him." The writer says that such faith can "please God," and that "the ancients were commended for" having it (v. 2).

Second, the New Testament indicates that to believe in Christ means to believe that certain propositions are true:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died
for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised
on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and
then to the Twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

Third, we may demonstrate by an analysis of language that to believe in (or "trust") a person is simply shorthand for believing that (or "assent") certain propositions about him are true.

For example, there are two ways to understand the question, "Do you believe in the devil?" The question may either be asking whether one believes that the devil exists, or whether he believes that the devil is worthy of worship. That is, the question implies one of the two propositions, and asks the hearer to affirm or deny it. A Christian would affirm the first and deny the second. However, unless the context of the conversation establishes the meaning of the question, or unless the hearer makes an assumption as to the meaning of the question if the context does not provide it, it is impossible to tell which of the two propositions the hearer is being asked to affirm or deny.

If D = "the devil," e = "exists," and w = "worthy of worship," then "I believe in D" may mean either "I believe that De" or "I believe that Dw." Either way, "I believe in D" must represent either of the two "believe that" statements, and thus it is nothing more than a shorthand for one of them.

Likewise, "I believe in God" is a meaningless statement unless it is reducible to one or more "believe that" propositions. In the context of Hebrews 11:6, if G = "God," e = "exists," and r = "rewarder," then "I believe in G" appears to have three possible meanings:

1. "I believe that Ge"

2. "I believe that Gr"

3. "I believe that Ge + Gr"

Hebrews 11:6 calls for a faith that affirms (3), without which one cannot please God; it is a "believe that" kind of faith. Also, note that to believe in X may imply a "believe that" faith in more than one proposition. In Hebrews 11:6, to have faith means to believe that Ge + Gr.

Therefore, we may conclude that "I believe in X" is simply shorthand for "I believe that X1 + X2 + X3…Xn." This means that to believe or have faith in something or someone is to believe or have faith that one or more propositions about that something or someone are true. To have faith in God and in Christ is precisely to believe something about them – to have a "believe that" faith. To say that faith is belief or trust in a person instead of assent to propositions and that faith must go beyond the intellectual may sound more pious or intimate to some people, but this kind of faith is a meaningless concept. A faith that does not "believe that" certain propositions are true does not believe anything at all; the content of this so-called faith is undefined.

Freewill/Voluntary Offerings & the Concept of Human Free Will

2007-09-05T21:52:00.000-04:00

Please see the following link for a good read (both link to the same article; one is in .pdf format, while the other is not):

http://www.vincentcheung.com/freewill-offerings-and-human-freedom-pdf/

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/11/28/freewill-offerings-and-human-freedom/

The Nicene Creed

2007-06-13T19:20:00.002-04:00

Also known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, this authoritative statement of the orthodox faith was the consensus of the Christian councils in Nicea (A.D. 325) and Constantinople (A.D. 381). The wording and concepts in the Nicene Creed come entirely from the New Testament, and it is the most widely accepted and used brief statement of the Christian Faith.

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic[1] and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism[2] for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

--
1. In the Creed, the word ‘catholic’ has its dictionary definition of ‘universal'; as such, it is not to be taken as a reference to Roman Catholicism.
2. ‘For’ has the meaning ‘because of’ as in ‘she cried for joy.’ Thus, the Creed does NOT teach baptismal regeneration, nor does the Bible.

Unconditional Love? [authored by Danel Copeland]

2007-04-12T17:11:00.002-04:00

-Part 1-

Friends,

I’d like to share a little email exchange I had with someone none of you know. She has a mailing list that sends out health tips. She sent me a short email about “unconditional love” and the following messages were exchanged. Tomorrow, I’ll share with you my final response. Take a few moments to consider how you might respond.

--

Original Email from “Sally”

What is unconditional love?

Unconditional love is accepting someone as he or she is, without judgment. And it doesn't just "happen". It is a mountain we must climb, constantly fighting our compassion fatigue, restricting our desire to give up, drawing on inner-strengths we knew nothing of, and looking to the peak even when we've been knocked down to our hands and knees. This is unconditional love.

Who needs your unconditional love today? Find a way to put your judgments aside. Love people for who they are.

--

Daniel’s Response

Why should we?

--

Response from “Sally”

We should because God commands us to love!

--

Daniel’s Response

Where does God command us to love in the way you have defined? That is, where has God commanded that we “accept someone as he is with out judgment”??

Thank you for your response.

--

Response from “Sally”

Let’s see… judge not lest ye be judged… love your neighbor as yourself (not only if they are perfect)…. Agape love is God’s love for us which is unconditional… He loves us even when we aren’t behaving the way He wants us to. It’s His kindness that leads to repentance. Loving a person without judging them doesn’t mean you condone whatever they do that you disagree with, etc. But I believe it’s Christ’s love through us that will lead them to repentance. I heard once that judging someone deems them unworthy of God’s amazing grace.

___________________________________________________________________

-Part 2-

Friends,

Below is my response to “Sally”. I hope you can sense my sincerity of love in it. It’s important that we stick to the Biblical definition of love in this age in which the memory of it has faded to a dim flicker, even in the churches. God bless.

There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end of it is the ways of death. - Proverbs 14:12

Daniel’s Response

Your notions seem to be naïve, without really dealing with all the Biblical data. You’re original email (which went out to a lot of people, I assume) defined “Unconditional Love” as “accepting someone as he or she is, without judgment”. The Bible doesn’t give this definition of love. In fact, we have to respect every part of Scripture, and put it all together to define what love is.

Consider this statement by Jesus . . .

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." -Matthew 18:15-17

Jesus tells us there is a point to stop associating with a person who will not repent. Does this fall under your definition of “accepting” or is Jesus teaching us to not be loving here? Additionally, Paul tells us . . .

"But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?" -1 Corinthians 5:11-12

Does “not even to eat with such a one” fall under your definition of “accepting”? Paul tells us here to judge those in the church, but your definition of love says we are not to judge. How do you reconcile these teachings with the ones you loosely quoted? Are we to love our neighbor? Of course, but what does this love look like? That is the question. We should be careful to not use just any definition that might look good on a Hallmark card. Sometimes, Biblical love is tough. Sometimes Biblical love calls us to tell someone they are wrong. We judge their actions as wrong, and we warn them. Sometimes Biblical love calls us to totally reject someone, being unwilling to even eat with them. Is the love conditional? No, but the acceptance is. Our love is constant, and the object of that love is God, himself. This is the first commandment, and the second flows from it. Out of our love and respect of God, we obey His commands in how we treat other people. We pray for them when they persecute us. We bless them when they curse us. We do good to those that hate us. Why? Because our God, whom we love, told us to.

As to the “judge not” passage you mentioned, Matthew Henry says some helpful things here . . .

We must not judge our brother, that is, we must not speak evil of him, so it is explained in Jam 4:11. We must not despise him, nor set him at nought, Rom 14:10. We must not judge rashly, nor pass such a judgment upon our brother as has no ground, but is only the product of our own jealousy and ill nature. We must not make the worst of people, nor infer such invidious things from their words and actions as they will not bear. We must not judge uncharitably, unmercifully, nor with a spirit of revenge, and a desire to do mischief. We must not judge of a man's state by a single act, nor of what he is in himself by what he is to us, because in our own cause we are apt to be partial.

The office of the judge is often to render a decision where there is not total clarity. We are to be careful not to do this with our neighbor . . . not to assume the worst of someone, and judge them to be guilty of things or motives we cannot be sure of. This is especially true when we are so unwilling to think the worst of ourselves, which makes us to be a hypocrite, which if you read the entire passage is the emphasis of Christ, for he says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.”

There are often times, however, when we are sure someone has done wrong and we do see clearly, and we are not to “accept” them in their wrong, but should rebuke them.

Concerning “agape”, the word does not necessarily mean “unconditional love”. If it did, the translators should have translated it that way, and if they had, then we would have verses that read like this . . .

“Do not unconditionally love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone unconditionally loves the world, the unconditional love of the Father is not in him” – 1 John 2:15 [ULV] – [Unconditional Love Version]

Your other comments depend heavily on what is even meant by “love” . . . for example, you say that God “loves us even when we aren’t behaving the way He wants us to”. If here we define “love” as “acts to do us good”, then I think the statement can only be meaningfully applied to God’s chosen people. [Romans 8:28]

However, even given that definition, what does this love sometimes look like? Was God loving Aaron when He burned his sons to death in Leviticus 10:2? I would say so, but the Hallmark company probably wouldn’t. God knew that the best good he could do for Aaron would be to protect His own Holiness…so that Aaron could see it and savor it forever.

So, let me sum up. Biblical love has several facets that must be understood. Sometimes this love requires us to “reject” people on the basis of their behavior. To do this, we need to be able to “judge them” in some sense. Our love is rooted in God. We love Him, and out of that love we obey His commands including those that inform us how to treat others. When we obey these commands, we are being loving, by definition.

Given all this, I hope you will reconsider how you define love, and how you encourage others to love. Also, I hope you will not be offended that I took the time to share with you these thoughts, as I believe I am doing the very thing you asked me to do . . . that is . . . I believe I am showing you love.

There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end of it is the ways of death. - Proverbs 14:12

____________________________________________________________________

Shortly after reading Unconditional Love, my wife decided to forward it on to some others on her e-mail contact list. On the same day, she received this response:

"Isn’t it interesting how a person can search the Bible and find verses to justify their actions and beliefs? Sally wants to love, so she finds the verses to justify love. Daniel wants to reject and judge, so he found the verses to justify those actions.

I’m in the same boat as Sally. Which boat are you in?"

This is unfortunate & sad for many reasons. Knowing that this came from a church-going person, I deemed it appropriate to respond. Here is how I responded:

Isn’t it interesting how a person can search the Bible and find verses to justify their actions and beliefs?

[It certainly is! It happens all day, everyday. Unfortunately, this is just as prevalent within the professing Church as it is without it. Our haste in lifting a line of Scripture here and there to "strengthen" or "build" a case for this belief or that action happens, most times, to our peril. Each single line of Scripture is encased in an immediate context, and that immediate context fits into an even more large body of 66 books.

"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 [ESV]

I have found that when one is unfamiliar with the larger context of Scripture (3/4 of those in our churches), and this one quotes a verse in order to make a point, the supposed point isn't usually made at all. What's worse, when one takes a verse out of context in order to make a case, being unfamiliar with other portions of Scripture, they run a great risk of misinterpreting Scripture in such a way that a perceived contradiction is raised within the Bible. What I mean by that is this - let's say that I have a certain view/conception of "love" and that I take that to the text and find a verse or two that contains that word. If I prematurely interpret said verse according to the preconception that I brought with me, then what happens further along down the road when I discover that my rendering of that verse runs directly contrary to something else that I find in Scripture? When it comes to this, is God's infallible revelation to be discarded due to the error found within (i.e., error meaning the supposed contradiction that has surfaced), or should I revisit my methodology of handling words, sentences, and paragraphs that were meant to be taken as a unified, cohesive whole? What say you?

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." - 2 Timothy 2:15 [ESV]

Maybe the "contradiction" that has been raised in such an instance is not actually a contradiction after all, as careful study could prove. When one handles the Bible (again, meant to be taken as one unified, cohesive, flowing whole) so loosely & carelessly, the necessary implication is that that one doesn't have enough respect and reverence for God (seeing as how the Bible is His revelation . . . the portion of His mind that He has decided to reveal to us). How frightening is that? When folks unintentionally, yet out of carelessness and out of a failure to do the tough work of careful study, set up a perceived contradiction within the Bible, which does not contradict itself, the onlooking unbeliever is strengthened in his unbelief and the scoffing from the unbelieving scoffer will only continue (i.e., "I told you that the Bible contained error!!," etc.). Have we not any more respect for the Almighty than that? All of that said to say this - it is not only interesting how a person can search the Bible and find verses to justify their actions and beliefs, it is a self-centered, careless, dangerous, and sinful practice (i.e., sinful in that it constitutes "adding" to or subtracting" from the revelation that God has given us). If the Bible says that the barn is red, then the barn is red. If a person says that it is blue, or even pink, regardless of whether or not it will give warm fuzzies or sound neat on a hallmark card, then I must judge that as wrong. Context makes all the difference in the world.

"Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." - Jude 1:3 [ESV]

"Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you." - 2 Timothy 1:13-14 [ESV]]

___________________________________________________________________

Sally wants to love, so she finds the verses to justify love.

[But Sally, sadly, never defined love from the Bible and never justified her belief from it in the least; she (if one would only carefully read her response) simply asserted an arbitrary definition of "unconditional love" . . .

Sally: "What is unconditional love? Unconditional love is accepting someone as he or she is, without judgment . . . This is unconditional love."

. . . only to string a few incomplete fragments of out-of-context Scripture together as her response, which was no response whatsoever. When pressed just a tiny bit, Sally could not answer . . .

Daniel: "Where does God command us to love in the way you have defined? That is, where has God commanded that we 'accept someone as he is with out judgment'??"

Sally: "Let’s see… judge not lest ye be judged… love your neighbor as yourself (not only if they are perfect)…. Agape love is God’s love for us which is unconditional… He loves us even when we aren’t behaving the way He wants us to. It’s His kindness that leads to repentance. Loving a person without judging them doesn’t mean you condone whatever they do that you disagree with, etc. But I believe it’s Christ’s love through us that will lead them to repentance. I heard once that judging someone deems them unworthy of God’s amazing grace."

Read carefully, for Sally never answered Daniel's simple request (a request certainly warranted due to the amount of folks that that this person is potentially leading astray), and by so doing, failed to provide ANY justification for her stance whatsoever. By the way, the last sentence is one of the most unbiblical things I have ever heard . . . none of us are unworthy of God's amazing grace (grace is by definition unmerited favor; we are not only unworthy of it, we are deserving of the opposite. What we are dealing with here is a person who has, over time, drifted from the harbor of Biblical truth, only to sail her boat directly into the harbor of political correctness, esp. relative to the world's view of judging another. Her views have more in common with man-centered popular culture than with anything Biblical.

To see what's wrong with the premise that it is wrong to judge, check out the following imaginary exchange:

Sally: "You shouldn't judge!"

Daniel: "Well, why not?"

Sally: "Why not . . . because judging is wrong."

Daniel: "If judging is wrong, then why have you just now 'judged' me as being wrong in my views on judging?"

--

See the intellectual suicide that just took place? Let me ask, would you say that what the terrorists did on 9/11 is wrong? If so, you just judged. In fact, and more relative to your response, your actual response shows how you have already judged the Daniel/Sally exchange! If Matthew 7:1 teaches what Sally says it teaches, then Sally should not deem what the terrorists did on 9/11 as wrong, lest she fail to meet her own self-imposed standard of unconditional love. She worked herself quickly into a knot.]

___________________________________________________________________

Daniel wants to reject and judge, so he found the verses to
justify those actions.

[Not at all. You accuse a person of eisegesis (reading something into the text that isn't there), when technically sound exegesis (working from Scripture to a position) has clearly occurred. If you believe that it has not, then the burden of proof now falls to your shoulders to provide the correct interpretation of the relevant passages covered in the exchange, which I hope you would be willing to take the time to do, considering the brevity with wich you treated a fine handling of Scripture. Take a week to respond, if need be! I truly mean that with all sincerity. When I read the above sentence of yours, I had to ask myself whether or not you actually even read the entire correspondence . . . it doesn't seem that way. If you did not, then I would encourage you to do so. Maybe you didn't read closely enough, in which case I would again recommend that you re-read the brief exchange. Did you take the time to consider the relevant texts, examining their respective contexts, or did you simply read and then side with Sally, who never gave a coherent Biblical argument? As a professing Believer, and as one that I would assume considers the Bible as her final and ultimate authority on matters of faith and practice, I would ask you to re-examine this correspondence in light of this. As Daniel so clearly pointed out . . .

Daniel: Are we to love our neighbor? Of course, but what does this love look like? That is the question. We should be careful to not use just any definition that might look good on a Hallmark card. Sometimes, Biblical love is tough. Sometimes Biblical love calls us to tell someone they are wrong. We judge their actions as wrong, and we warn them. Sometimes Biblical love calls us to totally reject someone, being unwilling to even eat with them. Is the love conditional? No, but the acceptance is.

Sometimes, if we are to take the Bible seriously, our loving of another might need to be expressed by rejecting that one in the hopes that they will repent, for it is the Bible (not hallmark) that defines love. I'd like to know your views on what the Bible says about church discipline, when you get a chance.]

____________________________________________________________________

I’m in the same boat as Sally. Which boat are you in?

[If I take Scripture seriously at all, I must make the judgment that Sally's boat is sinking, having no Biblical basis whatsoever. To jump ship to, or to remain in, Sally's boat would be tantamount to drowning due to intellectual suicide. If you are in the same boat as Sally, then I will ask you what Daniel first asked Sally . . . Where does God command us to love in the way you have defined? That is, where has God commanded that we “accept someone as he is with out judgment”? I look forward to your response. Again, please take a week or two if need be, as I realize the hectic schedules that we all keep don't always provide for this sort of thing (at least, not for an immediate, detailed, thoughtful response). I look forward to hearing from you soon.

"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." - Proverbs 18:2

--

I pray that you will understand that, according to Biblical standards, I have shown love to you by writing this to you. I pray that this will be very fruitful in the long run. May God be glorified in all of this.]

For further reading, please see:

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2006/12/27/speaking-the-truth-in-love/

Santa Claus Revisited

2007-04-08T18:52:00.001-04:00

I will be the first to admit that I love (and watch . . . most every year) the old claymation/animation works such as Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, etc.

[Oh yes, and before I forget . . . "You'll shoot your eye out, kid" (I think that either TNT or TBS runs a 24-hr. marathon of that one on Christmas Eve or so)! ]

At the same time, I do not teach Santa Claus as fact to my impressionable child; that is, I do not teach that there truly exists this jolly, white-bearded, magical, chubby, red/white-clad, black-booted man who makes his residence at the North Pole, employs short, pointy-eared elven-helpers, is married to Mrs. Claus, loves milk and cookies, visits the homes of well-behaved children (I think most Americans dropped this requirement long ago) after they fall fast asleep on Christmas Eve, travels in a sleigh driven by a host of reindeer led by none other than Rudolph, etc., etc., etc.

I do not teach my child this way as a Bible-believer, nor do I think that you should either, and here is why:

#1 - Teaching Santa as fact involves outright dishonesty on the parts of parents toward their children. If you know, full-well, that you are telling a non-truth to another party with the intentions of them truly believing what you are saying, you have a lie on your hands and nothing less. When you add to this the moldable and impressionable nature of trusting, concrete-thinking children, who take you at your word, you have a recipe for potential problems. Seeing parents, even within the Church, seeking to justify this dishonesty can be interesting and even entertaining. Can this sort of dishonesty be validated, and if so, how so?

#2 - Teaching Santa Claus as fact unintentionally positions St. Nick to be the focus of Christmas, as opposed to the incarnation of Jesus Christ to fulfill the will of God the Father. Throwing around a few of these - "Don't forget that Jesus is the reason for the season!" - doesn't make Jesus the reason for the saeson in reality, and neither does reading the story of the nativity prior to opening gifts (though I believe this to be a good idea, in and of itself). This scenario can be likened unto the young man who always writes to his sweetheart long love-letters, only to end those letters with - "Remember to keep God first!" God gets the P.S., and we need to avoid this sort of thinking. Our God is jealous for our attention, focus, gaze, and worship, and shares the stage with no one, for who is like the Most High? There are no other gods. For those who would consciously seek to strike a balance between Santa and Christ (a rarity, really), do you folks not see that you are presenting Santa and Christ as just as real and believable . . . fiction & non-fiction?? Dangerous stuff! This leads to my next point . . .

#3 - I do not present a fictitious character as fact, for when you have presented both Santa Claus and Jesus Christ as co-realities for many years of your child's formative experience, and since your children will soon realize that one of them (Santa) is fictional, the kid who actually thinks things through (and they do exist!) may begin to question the veracity and truthfulness of other things that you have taught as fact. It can introduce a skepticism into the parent-child relationship which can work against you as a parent . . . their trust of you could be at stake. It is difficult to respect and submit to one whom you are skeptical and unsure of. Now, while this was not the case with me, I actually know a person who struggled with God's existence as a young man due, in part, to this very thing.

#4 - Finally, I do not teach Santa as factual because my using of Santa Claus and his bringing of toys to good boys and girls as a motivator for year-'round good behavior motivates the child's behavior towards the wrong objective, one that is certainly not Biblical and God-centered. As a Christian parent, for what reason should your children behave? Should they do so simply to avoid chastisement (spanking)? Should they do so in order to get something? Both of these are self-focused motivations (the former having to do with self-preservation).

--

As a subpoint to #4 above, we would also do well to revisit the fine distinction between a bribe (not to be used in the parenting process) and a reward (which certainly has its place) - while the former has to do with using a desirable thing to motivate and bring about a certain behavior, the latter has to do with a positive consequence/reward born out of a situation where one meets preexisting expectations (i.e., obedience to parents, submission to parental authority, etc.). To avoid a reward subtly morphing into an unintentional bribe, be careful how much you talk about the reward beforehand, and let the reward be something that doesn't happen everyday (at least, the type of reward that would be especially BIG in the eyes of your child - you wouldn't want to do that all of the time; you couldn't afford it either). Every expected instance of obedience shouldn't be followed by a trip to the mall for the latest craze. Whatever happened to "That's a boy," "Good job sweetie," "I'm very proud of you, honey," or simple pats on the back that say a lot? These are very rewarding options to consider and implement more actively in the parenting process. Trips to the mall are nice, too; just be careful not to over-do it to such an extent that you unintentionally create a self-focused child with a nasty sense of entitlement. Regardless, however, Santa shouldn't be used either way (bribe or reward) due to the dishonesty involved.

--

Other things to consider:

* Well intentions are simply that - well intentions. We could say the same for doing fun things that bring about a state or disposition of happiness in the one doing those fun things. However, is it possible that that one could mean well but not do well; that is to say, that you could unknowingly transgress or fall short of a Biblical command/precept while meaning well all the while, ultimately bringing about a harm that was unforeseen in the beginning?

** Is it also possible that one could engage in certain things that, while being fun and bringing about happiness, are illegitimate and sinful (i.e., getting plastered, engaging in premarital sexual relations, etc.)? In other words, there are things that we shouldn't engage in that might be considered a lot of fun. Although I've given the answer in so many words, I'd like you to think on this one as well.

*** I will allow my children to "pretend" relative to Santa Claus if they'd like or sit in the lap of the one dressed as him at the malls in December, etc. There is no inconsistency here, as I would have already communicated the truth of the issue to them and discerned whether or not they could distinguish that which is real from something that is imaginary. If, however, you ask my child what Santa brought to him for Christmas, do not be shocked when he looks at you with a puzzled stare; he already knows that Daddy & Mommy are the gift bearers. The same could be said about questions related to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

**** As to the "magical wonderment factor" that many would claim I am removing from my child's early childhood years, to that I say nonsense. First of all, our current protocol for that time of year is uniquely wonderful and filled with lots of fun in his eyes. From his perspective, he's never been taught the typical Santa tradition, and for all he knows, he's not missing anything at all. Second, I would say that the Incarnation (God the Son stepping out of the halls of Heaven and taking on human flesh in order to save all sorts of people for Himself unto the glory of God) is much more miraculous than a fat man squeezing himself down chimneys. Third, even if the wonderment/wow factor was to a lesser degree in the eyes of a child (and it shouldn't be), this doesn't justify breaking Biblical precepts in order to remedy that in your mind. Be careful of the pragmatic mindset that would tell you that the end justifies the means; while this type of thinking about things (i.e., ethics, morals, etc.) is prominent in American thinking, it can get you in a LOT of trouble. If you have to transgress, or fall short of, Biblical commands/precepts in order to achieve a certain goal (i.e., possibly more fun for your child, among others things) then you have sinned . . . period. You are not loving your child when you do this, as much as your intuition and feelings say otherwise.

***** For more information on the historical Saint Nicholas, see the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_nicholas. You might want to teach your children about the historical St. Nicholas at some point. If so, the link provided should point you in the right direction.

--

With these things said, I would like to ask you some questions in closing:

(1) Since when did good intentions become the standard by which we act and make our decisions? While we certainly don't want to act out of bad intentions, is there more to the decision-making process (or, rather, should there be more) than merely meaning well?

(2) If an action is to be considered morally and ethically right based on whether fun is had in the process, what sorts of things could be considered fair game (could you name anything that the Scriptures deem as sinful and off-limits?)?

(3) Is obedience to God's commands/precepts (w/ are found in the Bible) and the very soul of your child more important to you than your reputation and likeability/coolness in their eyes?

Two Translation Methods & the KJV

2007-03-01T22:20:00.002-05:00

In recent weeks, my wife brought to my attention an issue that was raised by an acquaintance of hers*, one that has to do with the King James Version of the Bible, and one that deserves addressing. After a subsequent discussion with my wife (and having previously read a grossly misguided article in our local digest, one that likely deserved a rebuttal), I decided it fruitful to e-mail her acquaintance with what I have posted below. I pray that you find this helpful and enlightening. With that said, I will jump to the chase, providing some notes on the 2 methodologies that are used when translating Scripture.

* [the acquaintance is not of the KJV-only mindset, but is having to deal with it by way of other connections]

-//-

I. Formal Equivalence (literal or word-for-word)-

A. This philosophy of translating is basically a literal word-for-word translation (that is the primary objective); the translating committee starts with the original Hebrew, Aramaic (not to be confused w/ Arabic), & Greek (parent languages) and then proceeds to relay what they find there into the receptor language (English, in our case), using our vocabulary and way of speaking.

B. Due to the word-for-word faithfulness and accuracy, translations falling under this umbrella would serve us best as we seek to do in-depth study (say, for a sermon, lesson, or simply for personal enrichment).

C. The KJV, NKJV, NASB (New American Standard Bible), RSV (Revised Standard Version), NRSV, etc., would be examples (though there are more). My personal favorite would be the NASB (1995 updated edition), as it is probably the most scholarly word-for-word translation on the market today (often deemed the “official” or preferred translation on many Bible College & Seminary campuses).

D. If I could cite a minor drawback here, I would have to say that the reading can be a bit more choppy due to the emphasis on word-for-word accuracy; but then again, if I were reading through the Bible in a year or reading for a daily devotion, I might use something under the “dynamic equivalence” umbrella, to be covered below.

-//-

II. Dynamic Equivalence (thought-for-thought) –

A. This philosophy of translating is basically a thought-for-thought translation (that being the primary focus); the translating committee starts with the original Biblical languages and then proceeds to transmit the main thought(s) of what they find there into the receptor language. In so doing, they must initially deal with the literal wording of the original languages, carefully noting the context, after which they seek to communicate the thought to us in our language.

B. These sorts of translations would likely serve you best in the area of general reading and daily devotions.

C. The NIV, CEV (Contemporary English Version), NLT (New Living Translation), etc., would be examples (though there are more). I like the NIV here. In fact, some would even say that the NIV is a good mix between the two types of translating methods! If you picture a ruler lying horizontally in your mind, with the left end representing formal equivalence and the right end representing dynamic equivalence, none of these (I speak of translations under both umbrellas here) lie directly on top of one another; rather, they fall at different points (the KJV might be on a 11th grade reading level while the NASB might fall at the 12th grade level, with the NIV at 7th grade or something comparable).

D. If I could cite a minor drawback, it would almost be the reverse of the drawback referenced above . . . while the reading would be fluid and smooth, you could potentially miss out on an important detail here and there.

-//-

As for paraphrases such as the Living Bible (LB) or Message (MSG), they use an existing translation as the starting point rather than the original languages, after which they seek to make things even more readable. In a sense, no hardcore translating is taking place. Though these are not to be discarded merely because they are paraphrases and not translations (they can be quite helpful at times), I would not give them quite the same credit as the actual translations.

-//-

It must be remembered that the above summary is meant to explain the two primary methods of translating. It’s not so much that one is good and one is bad so much as both are useful for different pursuits. If I were pressed to tell which I would carry with me to a deserted island (if I could bring only one; I would hate that!!), I would probably choose the NASB . . . or the ESV . . . or the NIV??!!?? [most likely the NASB, 1995 edition].

-//-

This discussion relates to the whole KJV-only argument when those types of folks (as well-intentioned as they may think themselves to be) start discussing the absence of certain words, etc., in non-KJV translations, prematurely concluding that this automatically implies some sort of satanic perversion conspiracy of sorts. They might not know (or, worse, might know that the layperson doesn’t know) these translation dynamics. I would caution that before you bite on this line (". . . 'hell' is missing there - the devil's in the house . . ."), you will want to check out those other translations on those points . . . I have found that on many occasions, they must have forgotten to check out those other translations as their arguments are simply not true; that is, I find “hell” and “blood” in many translations other than the King James Version. In very limited instances, let’s say that the literal word is missing. Is the concept present? Is there a corresponding letter or number in the text that refers you to a marginal note offering further explanation? My point is that in most cases, the word is actually there when you check the context (I did this on “hell” just a minute ago with some software that I have), but even if it is not, that in and of itself might not be problematic as there are other things to consider.

Not only does this type of thing discredit them within the Christian community, it also carries the added potential of bringing reproach on the Body of Christ in the eyes of scoffers and unbelievers who are waiting for a chance to misrepresent all Believers because of the ignorance of a few. It is hard to blame them.

Consider a very relevant passage of Scripture:

Mark 7:1-9 (English Standard Version – word-for-word):

Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

-//-

Mark 7:1-9 (The Message):

The Pharisees, along with some religion scholars who had come from Jerusalem, gathered around him. They noticed that some of his disciples weren't being careful with ritual washings before meals. The Pharisees--Jews in general, in fact--would never eat a meal without going through the motions of a ritual hand-washing, with an especially vigorous scrubbing if they had just come from the market (to say nothing of the scourings they'd give jugs and pots and pans). The Pharisees and religion scholars asked, "Why do your disciples flout the rules, showing up at meals without washing their hands?" Jesus answered, "Isaiah was right about frauds like you, hit the bull's-eye in fact: These people make a big show of saying the right thing, but their heart isn't in it. They act like they are worshiping me, but they don't mean it. They just use me as a cover for teaching whatever suits their fancy, ditching God's command and taking up the latest fads." He went on, "Well, good for you. You get rid of God's command so you won't be inconvenienced in following the religious fashions!”

I give this one in light of the what sin is, that being any lack of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God (or, what God has commanded/what He expects from us). Beyond the precepts of God’s word, I begin questioning one who would make a matter of sin something that is foreign to God’s Word.

With that said, not all translations are necessarily equal in value; however, the message should remain the same in a copy of Scripture you purchase at your local Christian bookstore. Interestingly enough, The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) have come out with the NWT (New World Translation), claiming that this represents the best in translation scholarship and . . . rubbish! If you were to turn to John 1:1 and following in that “version,” you’d find something like this: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.” In the versions you find at LifeWay, it would read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” You can see how the very deity of Christ is at stake . . . a legit problem!

The Sufficiency of Scripture & Child Discipline III

2007-02-25T21:02:00.000-05:00

From last time . . .

The next response I received from Peace2You follows (you’ll notice that he addresses some items published in Part 1/S.T.S. 2.5 of this series).

I'm familiar with all the scriptures on the rod. Sorry if I interpret 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

-//-

Now we will pick up where we left off last time . . .

I'm familiar with all the scriptures on the rod. Sorry if I
interpret scripture a bit less literally than you and don't take an actual rod to be necessary. –Peace2You

Some scriptures are to be interpreted less literally than others - no doubt about that at all Peace. A good hermeneutic readily recognizes the possibility of the use of language in a figurative or non-literal sense (i.e., similes, metaphors, etc.) to teach a literal truth. The question remains, however, as to whether one is hermeneutically justified in viewing the rod passages of Proverbs in the manner that you have suggested; that is, metaphorically (based on these 2 qualifiers: "of discipline," & "of correction"). -Scott

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. –Peace2You

This is not warranted at all, especially upon closer examination of the cited passages. Let me state here that I do understand that you don't have a problem with a parent who spanks or with one who interprets the rod passages in the manner that I have suggested. I understand that. However, let me offer a working definition of "metaphor" that I think we can agree upon:

Metaphor: a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.

Let's now revisit the rod passages of Proverbs, along with viewing the passage on the armor that you referred to (I'll also throw in one for free from 1 Thessalonians 5 as well).

Proverbs 10:13 - On the lips of him who has understanding, wisdom is found, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks sense.

Proverbs 13:24 - Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

Proverbs 14:3 - By the mouth of a fool comes a rod for his back, but the lips of the wise will preserve them.

Proverbs 22:8 - Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail.

Proverbs 22:15 - Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13 - Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. [take a close look here]

Proverbs 23:14 - If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol. [take a close look here]

Proverbs 26:3 - A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. [take a close look here]

Proverbs 29:15 - The rod *and* reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. [some translations do use "rod of correction" here, leaving out "and reproof"; again, take a close look here]

-//-

Ephesians 6:10-18a - Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, *which is the word of God *[here is an in-text explanation], praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. *[sword of the Spirit is, in the text itself, defined as the word of God]

-//-

1 Thessalonians 5:8 - But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.

-//-

Now - while the context of the Ephesians 6 and the 1 Thessalonians 5 passages naturally lend themselves to metaphorical interpretation (i.e. denoting similarities between belt/truth, breastplate/righteousness, shoes/gospel, shield/faith, helmet/salvation, & sword/Spirit), the qualifiers “of _________” in 3 out of 9 Proverbs' "rod" passages don't look to parallel in the same way at all. In other words, sword of the Spirit is to the Word of God as belt is to truth (these are clear metaphors), but sword of the Spirit is not to the Word of God as rod is to discipline; that is to say, the sword of the Spirit IS the word of God . . . it does not BRING ABOUT the Word of God . . . at the same time, the rod IS NOT discipline . . . rather, it serves the purpose of bring about discipline. Context (at least of the usage of rod throughout Proverbs) should suffice to make the point.While the Ephesians 6 and 1 Thessalonians 5 passages are clearly metaphorical in that they are denoting similarities or comparisons between 2 unlike things, the passages in Proverbs take on more of a cause/effect relationship. I don't see how it is justified here to draw a similarity between rod and correction and/or discipline.

Added to this, as a matter of cultural manners and customs, the audience would have understood the shebet (or, rod) to mean a scion or stick utilized in writing, fighting, punishing, ruling, walking, etc. Usage of shebet could hypothetically be used in a figurative manner at times, but relative to child-discipline, it is not warranted. This paragraph and the one preceding it are very important, so I encourage you to read through them a few more times before moving on.

Proverbs 22:15 - Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him. [The tool (rod) utilized to bring about a certain objective (discipline) . . . ]

Proverbs 29:15 - The rod *and* reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. [some translations do use "rod of correction" here, leaving out "and reproof"] [The instrument (rod) used for the purpose of bringing about correction] . . . -Scott

I think discipline and correction will save your child's life. –Peace2You

Agreed. –Scott

But I don't think it is necessary that the rod be a part of that. –Peace2You

The Bible says that corporal punishment is to be a major component of a parent's disciplinary toolbox; created man is who says otherwise. Note that I did not say that nothing else should be utilized in discipline save the rod; not at all, for we have additional instruction such as the following:

Proverbs 29:15 - The rod *and reproof* give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. -Scott

As I said, I don't look down on anyone who does think that way, though. –Peace2You

True. –Scott

It is entirely justified by scripture. I just don't think it is required. –Peace2You

The 1st sentence above is odd to me, especially when taken together with the 2nd one that follows it. If the "rod" is to be understood in a metaphorical sense (as a non-literal way to refer to discipline and correction in general), then I don't see how it is entirely justified by Scripture. Is one justified in using the breastplate of righteousness in a wooden literal manner? –Scott

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. –Peace2You

Not at all! Have you observed ALL the children of people that failed to exercise corporal punishment, yet were otherwise strong in their disciplinary approach (even the ones that are dead and those who are yet to be born)? Even if you did (which you didn’t), how can you be so sure that you correctly interpreted that which you observed? What you have observed doesn't prove anything at the end of the day.

This is where induction, or seeking to reason from a part to the whole, fails us (though it, admittedly, has much appeal for pragmatically-minded Americans). In any event, it isn't quite as easy as you say it is. What you just did perfectly takes the form of a fallacious argument, known as asserting the consequent. Allow me to explain:

Asserting/Affirming the Consequent:

Premise 1: If A, then B;
Premise 2: B;
Conclusion: Therefore, A . . .

-//-

Can you spot the problem above before moving on? Try to see for yourself before reading on!!

-//-

Okay! The problem is that *A* was never established as a true premise in its own right whatsoever (look again); it was merely asserted or posited (“IF” A) in an attempt to make sense out of the situation. It was presupposed or assumed before-hand. In fact, *B* could be the case for many reasons other than *A*.

If we fill the construct with the meat of your argument for the success of variant methodologies of discipline other than corporal punishment, it would look like this:

Premise 1: *If* [A] non-physical forms of discipline can be successful, then [B] I will observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were disciplined consistently and actively, yet without the use of corporal punishment.

Premise 2: It is the case that [B] I observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were not literally spanked, yet who were disciplined consistently and actively.

Conclusion: Therefore, [A] non-physical forms of discipline can be successful.

-//-

Therefore what? Therefore nothing! Do you see the problem??
This suffers from the same problems as expounded upon above. *B* (. . . then I will observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were disciplined consistently and actively, yet without the use of corporal punishment . . .) can be the case for any number of reasons other than A.

Watch . . .

Premise 1: *If* [A] God can graciously produce a faithful servant in spite of the failure of his parents to spank, then [B] I will observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were disciplined consistently and actively, yet without the use of corporal punishment.

Premise 2: It is the case that [B] I observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were not literally spanked, yet who were disciplined consistently and actively.

Conclusion: Therefore, [A] God can graciously produce a faithful servant in spite of the failure of his parents to spank.

-//-

NOTE – Notice, however, that the disobedience of the parents remains just that . . . disobedience. It is not validated based on the Godly life of their offspring. You can find children who were raised correctly and who turned out bad; also, you can find children who were raised in horrendous conditions but who are present testimonies to the grace and mercy of the Lord. Regardless, we as Christian parents still have a standard to abide by; failing to adhere to Biblical precepts (in this case relative to the upbringing of offspring) is sin and nothing less.

-//-

I'll note some things here in closing:

1. We serve a gracious God who can certainly bring about what He desires in spite of our many failings as parents. Like you, I know many grown-ups that were not spanked and that turned out fine - granted. Thank God for that! However, this doesn't presuppose a successful method of discipline. The parents of those now grown-ups were still disobedient to revealed Biblical precepts. God is so gracious and we are so undeserving of it. Soli Deo Gloria!!

2. Let's alter things a bit for the sake of better understanding this issue. I know a child-hood acquaintance of mine that was spanked and is currently awaiting execution in Florida. I know many who were spanked that aren't beacons of integrity. If your argument about the success of non-corporal methods of discipline is valid, then is spanking non-successful in light of the failures? This would be irrational.

3. There are upstanding citizens that were spanked as children, and then there are problem-citizens that were spanked. Additionally, there are upstanding citizens who were not spanked, and then there are problem-citizens who were. If what we "observe" in a limited capacity (a particular) can be expanded to a universal truth (a general), then we now have a bona fide tangled web of unintelligible non-sense.

4. Spanking can be abused . . . sorely abused. Non-physical disciplinary measures can be abused also. This pretty much goes without saying; I know you would agree.

5. As I understand it, Proverbs is a book of principles . . . not necessarily promises. Sometimes we do all we know how to do in seeking to raise Godly offspring . . . and then it all hits the fan (although I would say that this is more the exception than the rule). Ultimately, the destiny of every child is in the hands of our Sovereign God, to do with them what He sees fit to do for His Glory. We must get into the Word though, finding out what God has said about raising kids - then we must implement those things in practical ways, praying that God would bring about awesome things through the means of good parental instruction. God can surely bring about what He has decreed to the exclusion of means; however, it doesn’t seem that He chooses to do so for the most part.

6. No matter what "seems" to work in our day of pragmatism, what has God said/revealed to us in the Bible? If sin is any lack of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God, we would do well to familiarize ourselves with His revelation (that law). -Scott

I know several such people. Their children are not foolish or dead . . . –Peace2You

Okay. –Scott

. . . 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

This is an entirely different issue here, although our subject led us here quite nicely. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. I think I will start a new thread on this, so as to not get too far off course here in this one. I'll call it "The Prompting of the Spirit & Guidance," and I'll post it under the umbrella of "Exegesis." –Scott

To read that thread (very short, but very helpful), simply click on the following link:

http://www.c2r.us/forums/viewtopic.php?t=69&sid=c1ecebb6ccc2703aabcafce72bf8a70e

-//-

I didn’t receive anymore responses from Peace2You.

-End of Series-

[Scratching the Surface 2.6]

The Sufficiency of Scripture & Child Discipline II

2006-08-11T17:43:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-11T17:39:00.000-04:00

"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

2006-08-02T16:56:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-02T16:00:00.000-04:00

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!!

2006-08-02T15:51:00.000-04:00

“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

2006-08-02T15:26:00.000-04:00

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

2006-03-14T16:48:00.000-05:00

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

2006-03-13T11:03:00.000-05:00

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]

2006-03-10T16:51:00.000-05:00

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

2006-03-10T16:21:00.000-05:00

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

2006-02-16T17:07:00.000-05:00

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?"

2006-02-16T14:43:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-02-16T14:30:00.000-05:00

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??

2006-01-31T11:31:00.001-05:00

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

2005-10-31T10:47:00.000-05:00

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

2005-10-31T10:33:00.000-05:00

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

2005-10-31T10:00:00.000-05:00

“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!

2005-09-12T14:02:00.000-04:00

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

2005-09-08T13:43:00.000-04:00

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

2005-09-06T12:30:00.000-04:00

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]

2005-08-20T18:55:00.000-04:00

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]

2005-08-20T16:05:00.000-04:00

“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]

2005-08-20T15:59:00.000-04:00

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]

2005-08-20T15:53:00.000-04:00

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 -

2005-07-23T20:53:00.000-04:00

"Night, Night . . . "

2005-07-22T21:08:00.000-04:00

Hello Mr. Camera!

Francis A. Schaeffer

2005-07-22T17:50:00.000-04:00

Francis A. Schaeffer (1912 - 1984)

__________________________

Francis Schaeffer was a Presbyterian minister with an ability to see how the questions of meaning, morals, and value being dealt with by philosophy, were the same questions that the Bible dealt with, only in different language. Once an agnostic, Schaeffer came to the conclusion that Biblical Christianity not only gave sufficient answers to the big questions, but that they were the only answers that were both self-consistent and livable. With this conviction he became a man of conversation.

Schaeffer taught that God is really there and He is not silent. He had spoken to man in the Bible as and a result we could have "true truth" about God and man. Knowing the dignity of man created in God's image, he placed a high value on creativity as an expression of that image. He opened his Swiss home to travelers to discuss these things. Later he began lecturing in universities and writing a number of books.

[the photographs and biographical sketch above were taken from "The Shelter," a Francis A. Schaeffer site]

S.T.S. 1.5 [Closing Comments]

2005-07-22T17:45:00.000-04:00

As I bring this issue to a close, I’d like to plug a new book that should eventually find its way into the hands of every Believer. Allow me to preface this particular promotion by saying that the featured resources that I connect you to each month deserve your attention (even if you take just five minutes to click the provided link for a quick browse). It is an important objective of mine to provide you with needed access to Biblical, theologically-sound, intellectually-stimulating & clear-headed items (be they books, articles, ministry web-sites, etc.) amidst a growing sea of choices.

Ah, we have been truly impacted by our pluralistic society. Many of these choices are, unfortunately, a waste of your time due to their basis in teachings that have no firm root in the Scriptures (as studied in their context). Many times, not only are these items a waste of your limited time, but they are even dangerous to your development as a disciple of our Lord. In any event, my point is that I seek to do my very best in providing you with many quality resources that are worthy of your time and attention. Remember . . . promoting truth and exposing error wasn’t my idea – it’s the design & decree of our God. As such, I think we would do well to think on that truth rather soberly.

Alright . . . on to the referenced resource of the month!! In this issue, I have provided you with a link to a site covering Nancy Pearcey’s latest work – “Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity.” Let me say a quick word about the author of this fine work – Nancy Pearcey (if you’d like to see a more exhaustive piece on Nancy, just check out the linked site and click on the “About the Author” tab). In the 1970’s, Pearcey traveled to Switzerland to embark on an in-depth exploration of the Biblical Worldview under the late Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri Fellowship – a profound Christian ministry with a focus on reaching out to intellectuals, skeptics, atheists, etc. Throughout the pages of “Total Truth,” Pearcey demonstrates the fruits of her days with Schaeffer. Moreover, the striking relevancy and incisiveness of the late Schaeffer’s thinking in our post-modern day occupies every page of this masterpiece.

You would do well to get your hands on this book. Furthermore, check out http://www.half.com/ or http://www.ebay.com/ for opportunities to purchase the various works of Francis Schaeffer, a God-given intellectual to the Body of Christ. I believe that you’ll find the works of Schaeffer shocking and stimulating, as they were written in a day which found itself less-saturated in relativistic thinking. In modern times, there seems to be as much relativism and postmodernism inside church walls as without. In the final analysis, bad thinking, whether explicitly secular or “baptized” in pop.-Christian lingo in a small group, must be exposed and eradicated.

2005-07-22T17:39:00.000-04:00

[taken from The MacArthur Study Bible & provided as a supplement to the main articles of S.T.S. 1.4 – 1.5]

I. Evidences That Neither Prove Nor Disprove One’s Faith:

A. Visible Morality [Matt. 19:16-21; 23:27]
B. Intellectual Knowledge [Rom. 1:21; 2:17ff]
C. Religious Involvement [Matt. 25:1-10]
D. Active Ministry [Matt. 7:21-24]
E. Conviction of Sin [Acts 24:25]
F. Assurance [Matt. 23]
G. Time of Decision [Luke 8:13,14]

II. The Fruit/Proofs of Authentic/True Christianity:

A. Love for God [Ps. 42:1ff., 73:25; Luke 10:27; Rom. 8:7]
B. Repentance from Sin [Ps. 32:5; Prov. 28:13; Rom. 7:14ff.; 2 Cor. 7:10; 1 John 1:8-10]
C. Genuine Humility [Ps. 51:17; Matt. 5:1-12; James 4:6,9ff.]
D. Devotion to God’s Glory [Ps. 105:3; 115:1; Is. 43:7, 48:10ff.; Jer. 9:23,24; 1 Cor. 10:31]
E. Continual Prayer [Luke 18:1; Eph. 6:18ff.; Phil. 4:6ff.; 1 Tim. 2:1-4; James 5:16-18]
F. Selfless Love [1 John 2:9ff., 3:14, 4:7ff.]
G. Separation from the World [1 Cor. 2:12; James 4:4ff.; 1 John 2:15-17, 5:5]
H. Spiritual Growth [Luke 8:15; John 15:1-6; Eph. 4:12-16]
I. Obedient Living [Matt. 7:21; John 15:14ff.; Rom. 16:26; 1 Pet. 1:2,22; 1 John 2:3-5]

If List I is true of a person and List II is false, there is cause to question the validity of one’s profession of faith. Yet if List II is true, then the top list will be also!

S.T.S. 1.5 [Things that Make Ya Go Hmmm . . . ]

2005-07-22T17:36:00.000-04:00

Qualifier:

I’d like to preface the following thought by saying that none of the comments below should be taken to mean that smoking should be legalized for those under 18 years of age. We all know that 2 wrongs have never made a right, right?? Right!! Rather, the point of the scenario below is to give a practical example of present-day double-talk and cheap thinking. It’s ironic to me (not really) how different sets of rules (that being NO rules) seem to apply to the many politically correct, hot-button issues of our time. To see what I mean, have a read below.

In a recent “Reflections” entry on the website of Stand to Reason, Christian Apologist/Philosopher Greg Koukl offered the following thought:

“If a woman – even a teenager – even a minor – even without her parents’ consent – has an inalienable right to have an abortion (at least according to modern-day secular humanists), then how does one argue that she cannot do something less violent to her body than such a medical procedure (can we even call it that??), and less violent to the body of another human being – the unborn child – like smoking, for instance?? For the sake of consistency, how does one argue that this is no longer an acceptable choice??? If the government is willing to say that something as extreme as abortion is a private, personal choice (so much so that even the real father of the girl seeking the abortion can’t interfere), then how do they justify their own ‘paternalism’ by taking a cigarette out of the hand of a teenager because she just isn’t old enough to decide for herself?”

As a Christian, I am quickly reminded of the following passage of Scripture which we find in Isaiah 5:20-21 [NIV]: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” I can’t speak for you, but the inconsistency and arbitrariness which constitutes the bulk of modern-day “thinking” and “reasoning” ought to be coming into sharp focus, especially during the hour of moral chaos in which we find ourselves living. Well . . . what a message, huh??

Hey kids . . . have an abortion – but not a smoke!?!? Go figure!!

S.T.S. 1.5 [Main Article]

2005-07-22T17:26:00.000-04:00

“ . . . On the Nature of True Saving Faith" [pt. 2]
(the truth about “falling from grace”)

I’d like to begin this follow-up edition with a question that many of us have probably wrestled with . . . “What about those ‘Christians’ who have completely abandoned their faith? Surely they won’t inherit the Kingdom of God, will they? How can they still call themselves ‘saved’?” This could also take another form (among others) . . . “Those constantly rebellious teenagers who were killed last week ‘walked the aisle’ and said ‘the prayer’ (10 years ago in V.B.S.), so they’re certainly headed for Heaven. They’re going to have a lot of growing to do when they get there, however, as they showed no signs of their salvation here in this life.” Were you able to see the same core assumptions involved above, although the peripheral matters were altered slightly?

My brothers and sisters, there is an extremely faulty, though commonplace, assumption lurking within the very questions themselves; this being the idea that anyone who professes to be a Christian must be a true Christian indeed (period . . . no questions asked). After all, “the aisle” has been walked and “the prayer” has been prayed! Shouldn’t those things do the trick?? I mean, if we could just get them to pray this simple prayer, regardless of whether there is a recognition of God’s holiness, man’s depravity/inadequacy, God’s provision in Christ the God-man, and man’s need to be rescued from his plight, then we’re good to go; the end justifies the means, right?? Absolutely not!! Where in the Scriptures did we come up with such nonsense?

Oh, that we would “rediscover the Book of the Law,” as did Hilkiah during the days of King Josiah (2 Kings 22-23). We would do well to pray God’s mercy on us for neglecting the whole counsel of his Word, particularly whereas the doctrine of salvation is concerned. May the Lord forgive us for seeking to placate our associations with extravagant numbers as we frantically seek to keep up with a “baptized” version of the Jones’s while Christianized bait & switch methodologies are employed and rewarded. In our day of pragmatism, please learn this lesson: “means,” not merely “ends,” will be tested on that Day according to their conformity to the Scriptures. There is no excuse for the enormous lack of Biblical knowledge that pervades the Body of Christ today. Lack of this knowledge has hindered, and even destroyed, the testimony of the people of God in times past, and can also do so once again.

In short, the answer to the scenarios at the top is that we can only conclude that the subjects described were never saved to begin with. The right question, therefore, is not whether someone can “lose” their salvation, but whether they were ever truly saved at all. When it comes to the issue of eternal security/perseverance of the saints (or the “preservation of the saints by the Father through the Savior,” as I like to call it), the overwhelming testimony of the Bible on this aspect of salvation is clear -- those who have been saved will never be lost. Read that last sentence once more. Although Jesus saves completely (Hebrews 7:25) and has made perfect forever (Hebrews 10:13) those who hear His word with faith, the author of the letter to the Hebrews exhorts the readers to prove the faith they profess by their perseverance. Christ Himself first pointed this out so beautifully when He, referring to true Believers, stated: “I give them eternal life, and they shall NEVER perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand . . .” [John 10:28]. Therefore, it should be very apparent - Jesus declared that no one who has ever received eternal life will ever lose it. Once again, read that last sentence very closely.

In a moment, I’d like to tackle an oft’-used “proof-text,” used many times by those who would take issue with what I’m now teaching. Before doing so, however, a few words regarding Biblical hermeneutics (the field of sound interpretation) would be most helpful to the subject matter at hand. When seeking to rightly interpret and/or exegete any passage of Scripture, the following general principles should be applied:

(1.) The Contextual Principle – What do the surrounding verses contribute to the
understanding of this text?

(2.) The Historical Principle – What is the history of the book and its subjects?

(3.) The Canonical Principle – What does the rest of the Bible have to say on this
subject; that is, what does the whole counsel of Scripture contribute to the
discussion?

(4.) The “Cloudy-Clear” Principle - Always interpret the “cloudy” in light of the
“clear” (or the “unknown” within the shadow of the “known”); & . . .

(5.) The “Read-More” Principle - Never read a Bible verse!!! You actually heard
me correctly! When dealing with questionable/seemingly ambiguous passages
(or any passage, for that matter), we need to read a paragraph at least . . . &
probably more. On an important note related to this principle, don’t ever
memorize a verse apart from its larger context. Doing so will always come
back to haunt you at a time when “haunting” is the last thing that you need.
Please note that I did not say that you had to actually memorize paragraphs
(though certainly plausible), but just that you should be familiar with the text
of the memorized verse.

Remember . . . context – context – context!! Oh yes, did I mention context?!?!
If you would seek to understand and exercise these basic principles on a regular basis, you would build your spiritual muscle and discernment capacity like nobody’s business (and you would prove yourself to be a rare gem in today’s dense rough). It is essential that serious students of the Scriptures develop at least these basic skills. Otherwise, you leave yourself with no firm root to establish you and anchor you when the various winds of doctrine blow in your direction (and they are many these days). Aren’t you sick and tired of being blown here and there by every wind of doctrine? Most Christians don’t seem to be, at least if their actions have anything to contribute to that question.

Before us now lies a great opportunity to put some of these skills to work as we sort out the difficult meaning of a hard passage. Many times, Hebrews 6:4-6 is confidently quoted as a proof-text to provide Biblical justification to a true believer losing his or her salvation. As we will see in a moment, to use this passage in this manner will lead to major problems in the cohesiveness of Scripture. Admittedly, however, these are some of the hardest verses to understand in the entire Bible. With that said, let’s dive right in. For your convenience, I’ve included the referenced-passage below:

Hebrews 6:4-6 (E.S.V.)

[4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, [5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, [6] if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

For starters, many Scripture passages make it unmistakably clear that “true” salvation is eternal [cf. John 10:27-29; Rom. 8:28-30; Phil. 1:6; & 1 Pet. 1:4-5]. The Holy Scriptures are rife with references to the believer being “preserved,” “kept,” “sealed,” “hid,” etc. The new life that we have in Christ Jesus is indeed “everlasting.” I ask you to recall hermeneutical principles 3 & 4 above in light of the preceding statements. Moreover, those believers (though truly sincere) who want to make these verses mean that believers can truly lose their salvation will have to admit it would then also say that one could never get it back again. To see what I mean by that, read our passage again very carefully. On the contrary, these verses more likely refer to “Christianized” (yet still unregenerate) Jews who were apt to “tuck tail and run” when the fires of persecution were fanned. Other synonyms that could be substituted for these folks are “tares” (see Matthew 13:26-30; 36-43), “religious-but-lost” church members (and they aren’t few), “apostates,” etc., etc. For these “professed” Christians who absolutely refuse to progress in the faith, there are some woeful and troubling consequences, as well as a distinct prognosis of their true spiritual condition.

To whom is the writer speaking??? Surely these are genuine believers, right? Not necessarily so!

Hebrews (a masterpiece on the “Superiority of Christ”) offers a fair amount of information about the original recipients and their situation. Confusion abounds as to the subjects to whom the writer of Hebrews is writing: whether saved or lost, particularly Jew or Gentile, carnal or spiritual, and whether the situation presented is literal or hypothetical. The original readers look to have been familiar with certain concepts and imagery drawn from the Old Testament (i.e., they were interested in the Old Testament sanctuary, sacrificial system, and priesthood). They had not heard the Gospel (Good News) directly from Jesus, but from apostles (2:3), had faced previous persecution (10:32-34), and were facing present persecution, including expulsion from “familiar” Jewish institutions (13:12,13). They were in danger of falling away, perhaps fearing death (2:14-18), although their faith had not yet led to martyrdom (12:4). Drawing these features together, we can surmise that the recipients were professing Jewish Christians of the Dispersion (the scattering of Jews outside Palestine). Apparently the temple was still standing and its sacrificial rituals were being performed (10:2,3,11). Perhaps the situation is that of the persecutions under Nero (c. A.D. 64). In that case, the suffering mentioned in 10:32-34 could have been caused by the edict of Claudius, which expelled Jews from Rome in A.D. 49 (Acts 18:2). Subject to suffering and shame for their confession of Jesus, stripped of the familiar and visible institutions of organized Jewish religion, and confused by the hidden character of Jesus’ glory (veiled in suffering when He was on earth and now hidden in Heaven), the readers are tempted to turn away from the faith (10:38,39), to fall into unbelief and so to give up their pilgrimage towards God’s rest and God’s city (4:1,2,11; 11:10, 14-16; 13:14).

The highly regarded New Commentary on the Whole Bible by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, along with some miscellaneous commentary notes from pastor-teacher John MacArthur, will help to guide us through these deep theological waters. Please keep reading . . .

“A proper interpretation of this epistle requires the recognition that it addresses 3 distinct groups of “Jewish” people: (1) Believers; (2) unbelievers who were intellectually convinced of the Gospel; and (3) unbelievers who were attracted by the Gospel and the person of Christ but who had reached no final conviction about Him. Failure to acknowledge these groups leads to interpretations inconsistent with the rest of Scripture (and “the Scriptures cannot be broken,” according to our Master). The primary group addressed was Hebrew Christians who suffered rejection and persecution by fellow Jews (10:32-34), although none had yet been martyred (12:4). The letter was written to give them encouragement and confidence in Christ, a far superior (spotless/unblemished) High-Priest and sacrifice. They were likely an immature group of Believers who were tempted to hold on to the symbolic, but spiritually powerless, rituals and traditions of Judaism. The second group addressed was Jewish unbelievers who were convinced of the Gospel’s truth but who had not placed their faith in Jesus Christ as their own Savior and Lord. They were intellectually persuaded yet spiritually uncommitted. These folks are addressed in such passages as 2:1-3; 6:4-6; 10:26-29; and 12:15-17. The third group addressed was Jewish unbelievers who were not convinced of the Gospel’s truth but had some exposure to it. Chapter 9 is largely devoted to them.”

From the “Introduction to Hebrews”, pp. 1895-1896
The MacArthur Study Bible
Word Publishing, 1997

“These verses are difficult to interpret because it is not fully clear who the writer is speaking of and what it means to renew them again unto repentance. Some say the people are Jewish Christians who, desiring to return to Judaism (in light of an increasingly hostile atmosphere), would lose their salvation. Still others say that the people are ‘professing’ Christians who ‘apostatize’ from the faith (again, in light of growing persecution) and thus show that they were never really believers (see 1 John 2:19 and the case of Simon Magus in Acts 8). Those who apostatize (fall away) from the faith do so willfully; it is therefore impossible for these people to repent (Morris) – which, of course, means that it is impossible for these people to obtain salvation. Lindsell said, ‘Whatever view is taken about the state of an apostate prior to his apostasy, the outcome is the same. Whoever openly and consciously rejects Jesus Christ is unregenerate even if he seemed to have been saved earlier. The Arminian would say he had lost his salvation; the Calvinist that he never had it. Either way, the result is identical.”

New Commentary on the Whole Bible
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown

Now, let’s unpack this suitcase piece by piece . . .

Once Enlightened – This speaks of increased awareness brought about by the truth of the Gospel; by the light of Christ. This, by sheer necessity, is inevitably accompanied by some degree of intellectual perception (but not “reception,” per se). We should not prematurely equate “enlightenment” with salvation (see John 1:9).

Tasted of the Heavenly Gift – This indicates at least an initial, surface-level experience of or exposure to God’s gift in Christ (see John 4:10). Many Jews during the Lord’s earthly ministry experienced the blessings of Heaven that He brought – healings, deliverance from demons, eating the food He created miraculously (John 6), etc. Again, however, experience should not be viewed as the equivalent of salvation in the final analysis.

Partakers of the Holy Spirit – “Shared in the Holy Spirit” (NIV); without faith, however, proximity to God in the fellowship of His covenant people is no blessing; rather, it subjects apostates to more severe judgment . . . be so very careful as to what you expose yourselves to, for further exposure creates further accountability/responsibility. The concept of partaking is used in 3:1; 3:14; & 12:8 of a relationship which believers have; however, the context must be the final determining factor. If I said: “Boy, that was a gay affair,” what would I be conveying? Remember . . . context – context – context!

Tasted the Good Word of God – They were repeating the sins of those who died in the wilderness [after seeing] the miracles of God performed through Moses and Aaron and [after hearing] the voice of God at Sinai. If you’ll recall, these Israelites were supposed to go into the Promised Land, but then refused to enter. This should tell us something big about lost people; namely, that the lack of evidence isn’t as problematic in the life of the unregenerate man so much as the suppression of evidence. The previous comment should not be taken to mean that there is no “evidence” for the Christian faith or that the study or presentation of “evidence” is futile or sinful. There is an appropriate place for those endeavors, but a detailed explanation of that place is not the purpose of this issue. The New Commentary on the Whole Bible goes on to say that “a person can experience many of the same blessings as genuine Christians do and then later reject the faith. Such rejection is called apostasy.” Like Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24) or Judas Iscariot, these Hebrews had not yet been regenerated in spite of all they had heard and seen (cf. Matthew 13:3-9; John 6:60-66).

The Powers of the World to Come – Most obviously, the signs and wonders that accompanied the introduction of the Gospel. We should take note here that these folks are not described with any terms that the Scriptures apply only to Believers (holy, born again, righteous, or saints).

[It’s Impossible] If They “Fall Away,” to Renew Them Again Unto Repentance – If those who toy with Christianity become unsettled and decide against Christ, they are no longer undecided, and their personalities will likely crystallize around that decision. After crossing this point of no return, it can be said that they would not repent (and one could see why). Those who sinned against Christ in such a way had (and still have) no hope of restoration or forgiveness (cf. 2:2,3: 10:26,27; 12:25). The reason is that they rejected Him with full knowledge of what they were doing. With full revelation they rejected the truth, concluding the opposite of the truth about Christ, and thus had no hope of ever being saved. They could never have had more knowledge than they had when they rejected it. To reiterate an earlier point, those who want to make this verse mean that Believers can lose salvation will have to admit that it would then also say that one could never get it back again . . . “twice lost – always lost.”

They Crucify to Themselves the Son of God Afresh – By their final decision, they join the side of those who put Him to death; that is, by renouncing their faith in Christ, they (by default) declare that Christ’s cross is not a holy (justified/valid) sacrifice for other’s sins, but rather the deserved execution of a guilty criminal (10:29). They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with His enemies. When the work of Christ is consciously rejected and spurned, what other sacrifice/remedy is left for sins (see John 14:6 and Acts 4:12).

IS THE SITUATION IN VERSE 6 HYPOTHETICAL OR LITERAL???

Only after finally realizing – in light of the larger testimony of Scripture – that the situation of verse 6 is presented in the context of apostasy did I settle on the literal interpretation. The hypothetical is simply not clear, making that rendering even more suspect. Upon much reflection, I can say that these verses are literally talking about people who are “tares” (see Matthew 13:26-30, 36-43). In other words, they look like Christians on the outside, but have never been born again on the inside. This thoroughly Biblical theme makes the religious-but-lost concept even more critical. If the falling from grace crowd would ever fully realize and accept the extent of the religious-but-lost problem, it could potentially solve this debate. They would see the multitudes of apostates not as having lost their salvation, but having never had it in the first place. At the risk of sounding repetitive, the subjects of Hebrews 6:4-6 were unbelievers who had been exposed to God’s redemptive truth, and perhaps had even made a profession of faith, but had not exercised genuine saving faith. As in Hebrews 10:26, the reference once again is to apostates (“tares” who apostatized/fell away during tough times), not to genuine Believers who are often incorrectly thought to lose their salvation because of their sins.

In conclusion, the false doctrine often labeled “falling from grace” comes in large part from a misunderstanding of this text (although there are more) and that is very unfortunate. The teaching of eternal security has strong Biblical justification; as such, it is not merely a “denominational darling,” per se, invented to make excuses for licentious living or to soothe our lives as some sort of “fire-insurance policy” alone. This is not simply a narrow-minded Baptist or Presbyterian dogma that we blindly hold-on to for the sake of tradition . . . God help us if that’s the case!! Since I am an “equal opportunity picker” (I stole that one from my Pastor), there is much modification that needs to be made on the parts of both your avg. Baptist (weak/carnal version of preservation called “once saved, always saved”) and those who take a position against a valid/clear Biblical teaching. I have abandoned the frequently heard statement, “once saved, always saved” (as it can be sorely misleading) in honor of a more sound Biblical theology and phraseology. If there was even a possibility that a true Christian’s salvation could abruptly end, the Word itself is fatally flawed and the hope of living forever in Christ is conditional on the works of humanity (our ship would be “sunk” every week if that were the case). Brethren, as you struggle with and handle the revealed Word of our Lord with much fear and trembling when you rise up, when you lie down, and when you walk in the way, I pray the Lord would be your Guide.

In the August 2005 issue of Scratching the Surface, my great friend and accountability partner, Daniel Copeland, will come on board to do a little “surface scratching,” as he tackles the issue of rightly handling the Word of truth in greater detail than I have here. I’ve seen the bulk of that article already and am thankfully excited for what our Lord has in store for you all in S.T.S. 1.6. To God be the glory, great things He has done!

You’re bound to slip “on-board,” but you won‘t fall “over-board!”

S.T.S. 1.4 [Closing Comments]

2005-07-22T17:22:00.000-04:00

I bring this issue to a close by offering some thoughts on how certain aspects of American culture (as it now stands) have contributed to the "fragmented spirituality" practiced by many "professing" Believers.

Here in America, we have grown accustomed to a way of life that basically tends to separate who we are (beliefs & values) from what we do in a sense (actions-behavior-conduct). If you don’t believe that, just open your ears during election season!! This mindset, in turn, has slowly crept into American Evangelicalism.
In America, we so over-compartmentalize our lives that the only consistency in us is the fact that there is none. If there ever were such a thing as a walking, breathing "oxy-moron," it would have to be the run-of-the-mill American whose thinking has been taken captive by the prevailing ideas and notions of popular culture. Unfortunately, this is all-too-commonplace in many Churches. I’m willing to bet (not really) that this is an underlying principle in the following scenarios which I’ve devised to make the point:

1. Your co-worker claims to be a born-again Christian, but he sees no correlation between his
"beliefs" and his work ethic. Better yet, he sees no problem hitting the local pub after work to
have a drink with the crew. I mean, after all, who are we to judge? "I’m not the role model
Christian," he affirms, "but at least I am a good ol’ boy." (all the while, he never sees the
inconsistency)

2. Your friend (not being the beacon of personal integrity) believes her personal, private lifestyle has no bearing on her professionalism at work. She facilitates classes on leadership skills while
on the job, but is a loser with her husband/kids at home. "What I do behind closed doors
doesn’t affect anyone but me," she says every now and then.

3. A nameless Senator (running for President) claims that his personal belief is that life is a gift
of God that begins at conception. Unfortunately, this type of belief (since it wreaks of
Christianity) has no place in this candidate’s contradictory public policy ideas. "I have to
uphold the U.S. Constitution, which calls for a strict separation of Church & State," he whines.
(No, John, it doesn’t . . . read it again – this time in context, please sir!)

4. Multitudes of professing "Christians" believe that they have their "fire-insurance" (after all,
they have walked an aisle . . .). "Whether we choose to ever live for Christ is entirely another
matter," they say. (Maybe I’m missing something, but what about passages such as Matthew
7 & 13:24-30; 36-43/John 3:36/2 Corinthians 5:17 & 13:5/Ephesians 2:10/ and James 2:14-
26? Also be sure to re-read this month’s quote, which sums things up nicely.)

I think there may be a common denominator running through the very heart of the 4 common scenarios above. What about you?

Until next month’s issue . . . . . . . don’t be ashamed to peel back those Surfaces in order to see what’s worth holding on to. Some will thank you for doing so, while many others (Christians included) will seek to marginalize you for it. When everything is said and done, however, at least you can say that you escaped the shackles of a mere day-to-day existence in order to get outside of the box. I want to warmly wish you a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!

S.T.S. 1.4 [Q&A 101]

2005-07-22T17:17:00.000-04:00

[Subject – Cults!!]

Question:
"What is a ‘cult?’ More specifically, what differentiates a cult from simply another ‘denomination?’ "

Answer:
Simply put, a "cult" (as it pertains to the Christian faith), is a group that claims to be Christian in nature but that deviates from the ESSENTIAL doctrines of classical Christianity. That is, members of Christian cults such as the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) or the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) fall outside of the "pale of orthodoxy." Some doctrines that are in view here are the authority of Scripture, Person & work of Jesus Christ, the nature of God (monotheistic or polytheistic), the Trinity, sin, the resurrection, the way of the cross (Jesus as the ONLY Way to the Father), state/condition of the human heart, etc.Remember this -- in ESSENTIALS . . . Unity; in NONESSENTIALS . . . Liberty . . . and in ALL THINGS . . . Charity!! Denominations do not exist due to deviations/variances on ESSENTIAL Biblical teaching, but rather deal more with certain NONESSENTIAL concerns. Items in this category could range from one’s view on baptism (i.e., immersion, sprinkling, or pouring), to a person’s take on capital punishment, to an individual’s stance on "last days" or "end times" chronology, etc. By the way, neither the essential nor the nonessential lists above are completely exhaustive (specifically the latter list of nonessentials).

In that light, the various denominations that fall under the larger umbrella of Christianity are inevitable when you consider many dynamics. In essence, two Christians can take opposing sides on a "secondary" issue and still be Christians all the while in good fellowship with one another. Remember, secondary doesn’t mean unimportant!!On this note, we need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. This is not to say that truth cannot be discerned on these nonessential issues; furthermore, I never want to give the slightest impression that those who disagree on secondary concerns should never flesh these things out with one another. In fact, I would encourage believers to dialogue about "secondary differences" in light of Biblical & historical context, "age" of the particular stance relative to Christian history, etc. On the other hand, however, we must be careful not to become embittered against brothers and sisters who differ with us on the non-essentials. When we begin to lean in that direction, we become very legalistic very quickly; this is something that we need to guard against. On these issues . . . may the best idea win!!

To explore this very issue a bit further and in more depth, I refer you to the following helpful articles:

1. What Is Christianity?http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/whatis.htm

2. The Essentials of Christianityhttp://www.equip.org/free/CP0701.htm

S.T.S. 1.4 [Main Article]

2005-07-22T17:05:00.000-04:00

. . . On the Nature of True Saving Faith . . .[pt. 1]

("Faith ALONE saves, but the faith that saves IS NEVER ALONE!")

I don’t know about you, but I truly believe that American Evangelicals have missed the boat entirely whereas the nature of true Biblical salvation is concerned. As far as I can see, this issue rests (at least in part) upon an overemphasis on a questionable teaching that we will call "Carnal Christianity." By "Carnal Christianity," I am referring to the popular and appealing (but historically recent – say 50-60 years) notion that one can be truly regenerate/"saved" and not show the slightest hint of that throughout their lifetimes . . . & still get heaven upon departing this life. This is false, at least in my estimation.

The foundational problem is our understanding of "conversion" as a mere human decision (on this view, one could choose not to grow or, better yet, to remove themselves from the saving grip of God) instead of a supernatural working of God whereby the very NATURE of the individual is changed.Make no mistake about it – one becomes a child of God through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit! The "heart of stone" (which is unresponsive to God) is removed and replaced with a "heart of flesh" (that responds to God). Before conversion, one is inclined to the things of the flesh and sin. After conversion, one is given to the things of the Spirit and holiness. The notion that we have any sort of freedom apart from the governance of God is not a Biblical concept, for it is in Him that we live, move, and have our being. We do not simply adopt a new set of rules and force ourselves to live by them, but rather we become a "new creature" that DESIRES a new set of rules according to the very nature, character, and will of God.

The references to "carnality" are to be explained in their context:

1. It should never be denied that: [a] all new believers must grow from carnality and immaturity into a spiritual and mature walk with Christ; [b] even mature believers may act carnally and immaturely.

2. What is to be denied is that a truly "regenerated" person can live in a constant state of carnality without growth to maturity and the bearing of fruit – this is the popular (but Biblically absent) doctrine of the "Carnal Christian" that has done so much damage to the Church (especially in the U.S.A.).

3. Many of the "Christians" in Corinth were indeed acting in the flesh. Paul attacks this problem in 2 ways: [a] 1st, he admonishes them that believers are not to act in such a way; [b] 2nd, he warns them that if they CONTINUE in the flesh WITHOUT REPENTANCE, it could very well be the evidence that many of them are still "unregenerate" (2 Corinthians 13:5).

4. Many true Believers are indeed delayed in the process; & not all progress at the same rate or pass away at the exact same mark (we know this from the rewards system in heaven) . . . but, a huge distinction must be made between delayed growth & no growth at all.

The teaching of the Scriptures is clear – the genuine Christian will walk in the way of the Lord or on the "narrow path" (Matthew 7), not because of his greater will or discipline, but because God has made that person into a new creation for His glory. John Piper once stated that "the Christian disciple serves Christ Jesus in the power with which he or she is served BY Christ Jesus"; furthermore, Christ is not the lucky beneficiary of His trusted Christian benefactors. Christ Jesus is the Initiator and He thus gets ALL of the glory, for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things forever and ever, amen. When the true Believer steps off the "path," he is "convicted" and even "disciplined" by a loving/caring Father (Hebrews 12:5-11) until he returns. If a "professing" Christian steps off the path and begins to bear the fruit of the unbeliever, he can have no assurance of ever being saved/rescued. If he returns to the path, then this is a confirmation of his salvation and the foundation of his assurance. If he does not return to the path, it is a great evidence of his "unregenerate state."To say that a true Believer's life can be consistently characterized by an unrepentant, happy-as-you-sin-regardless pattern is foreign to the testimony of much Scripture.

Therefore, based upon this very testimony, I must take the position that the teaching of co-called "Carnal Christianity" (again, not Christians who can act carnally) is shaky, weak, & Biblically unfounded. If you are truly justified (in right standing with God [positionally]), the Scriptures declare that you shall be truly sanctified (progressively set apart) & truly glorified (our ultimate redemption, to which we should look forward with eagerness). It has been rightly said that "I'm not what I want to be (sanctification); I'm not what I'm gonna be (glorification); but thank God I'm not what I used to be (justification)!"

Once again - to say that one can be justified & not sanctified is just not good theology. It is God who saves, God who preserves us, God who works through us, and God who will raise us up on that that glorious day . . . with that said – Glory to God in the highest!! All of us must think soberly on these truths in this day when our substance (not our style) seems to have more in common with the fluctuating ideas of pop-culture than it does with the principles of Christ.

S.T.S. 1.3 [Concluding Remarks]

2005-07-22T16:59:00.000-04:00

Concluding Remarks:

In the process of doing some background work in preparation for this month’s issue, I came across a great piece that summarizes my basic rationale throughout the feature article. In closing, I’d like to share it with you here:

"In May, 1994, Congress passed a law making it a federal offense to block an abortion clinic. Pamela Maraldo, President of Planned Parenthood at the time commented to the press, ‘This law goes to show that no one can force their viewpoint on someone else.’ The self-contradiction ought to be obvious: All laws force someone’s viewpoint."(Gregory Koukl, Christian Apologist, Stand To Reason)

No, Ms. Maraldo, a particular brand of "morality" was legislated in May ’94, one that doesn’t conflict with your worldview (hence, your satisfaction with the decision). Again . . . see what I mean? I encourage you to listen closely to what people say, for many times, the devil is right there in the details!

Legislating Morality! It's not 'IF' or 'WHETHER,' but 'WHOSE!'

2005-07-22T16:48:00.002-04:00

Legislating Morality -- The REAL Issue . . .

(it’s not "IF" or "WHETHER," but "WHOSE")

"Please remember this . . . all law/legislation is someone else’s view of right/wrong that is imposed on another!! America has legislated morality since her beginnings, and rightly so, for we would have chaos and anarchy if that were not the case. However, this brand of politically-correct rhetoric should clearly show us that much of the thinking within America (& within Christendom) is about a mile wide and an inch deep." (Scott, 10/2004)

. . . and since then: [Presidential Debate #2 Excerpt]

GIBSON:
"Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart."

DEGENHART:
"Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?"

KERRY:
"I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it on someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights . . . that's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. . . . you'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it."

___________________________________________________________________

Wow! It’s an interesting place we’ve come to here, wouldn’t you say? On the one hand, we Evangelical Christians strongly esteem and place super-high value upon life due to the fact that mankind is created in the very image of God. This truth inevitably and naturally impacts our views and/or voting habits on issues pertaining to life, be they issues of abortion, embryonic stem-sell research, euthanasia, etc. On the other hand, however, we’re constantly told by the liberal elite that it’s simply inappropriate to "legislate" or "impose" such beliefs on those Americans who would disagree for various reasons. If you don’t see this starting to happen, I’ve only got one thing to say . . . disarm the "SNOOZE BUTTON" feature on your cultural alarm clock, because you seem to have a habit of hitting it during times like these.

From here on out, I’ll refer to this popular, albeit erroneous/flawed, line of reasoning as the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy." This particular mindset, which has saturated our thinking for decades, can be restated in the following ways:

As long as I don’t hurt anyone the government should leave me alone . . .

No one should force their morals on anyone else . . .

You can’t make people be good . . .

Legislating morality violates the "separation of church & state" . . .

"Big Brother" has absolutely no business in my bedroom . . .

Do you see the common thread woven throughout the preceding lines of argumentation? Namely, that it is wrong to legislate/impose "morality" on the people, specifically those who disagree with a particular moral stance. While I’ll readily grant the notion that the preceding philosophy has good rhetorical force (i.e., if one isn’t familiar with this type of rhetoric, he or she will most likely be caught off guard), it is desperately lacking in terms of strength and substance.

Why is this the case?

Allow me to offer a couple of theories on this:

1. For decades, this brand of jargon has been "spoon-fed" to us through a plethora of avenues (i.e., Hollywood, the media, activist court rulings, misguided politicians, etc.). Interestingly enough, if you were to take a certain saying, belief, argument, etc., and pound it over and over again into the thinking of a highly susceptible, non-thinking culture, you’d be amazed at the things that would become acceptable. Unfortunately, we tend to accept that which is ingrained into our thinking when we don’t think through the practical ramifications of a particular thought. Remember that ideas have legit consequences.

2. On top of the previous theory, it has "populist" appeal, in that it strongly identifies with the mindset of radical independence that has swept over our land. That is, we humans (especially Americans) don’t like being told what to do (I mean, after all, we’re depraved, capable, and know what’s best, right?) . . . HA! We could certainly camp out here for a while, but that’s for another time. In sum, Americans value what seems fair rather than what is true. Honestly, the same could probably be said of the American Church!!

As for the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy" lacking in terms of strength/substance, take a look at the following simplified exchange (in conversational form) which will serve to expose the basic problem:

Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
I think it’s awesome that we have the most pro-life president in history (i.e., signing into law the Born Alive Infants Act, Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and Laci & Connor Peterson’s Law)! On that note, we have the opportunity this year to impact legislation whereas the issue of abortion is concerned; more specifically, we, the people, get to decide on the parental notification of a minor’s termination of pregnancy. I can’t believe this is even an issue, but if my child has to have my permission to take an aspirin at school, I will be made aware of a situation like this. My voice, through my vote, will be heard this year! You know, maybe abortion should be outlawed altogether.

Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Mike, you certainly have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, but the fact of the matter is that things have changed and we’ve made a lot of progress as a society. In fact, it has been well-said that America is going through "collective puberty." Besides, it’s common knowledge these days that moral imposition is off-limits, especially whereas the government is concerned. We cannot impose or legislate morality . . . it’s simply wrong . . .

Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
Is that, then, your "morality?" In other words, is your belief that you cannot impose morality "your morality?"

Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Well . . . ummm . . . I’ve never really looked at it that way, but if that’s what you want to call it, then fine . . .

Mike "Mustlegislatemorals":
Since that is "your morality," whether you’d like to admit to it or not, then why are you "imposing" it on me (and the others who dissent)? Why will you be seeking to "impose" your brand of morality on those who disagree with you by "your vote" on the issue?

Charlie "Cannotlegislatemorals":
Huh???

Do you more clearly see the basic problem?

It’s not a matter of whether morality can be legislated, but WHOSE morality will be legislated. Don’t ever forget that!! In fact, if you get nothing else from this month’s issue, make sure you grasp the preceding point. ALL law/legislation is someone’s view of right and wrong that is imposed on another. Much like the man who says there are no absolutes (which would have to be "absolute" in order to be "true"), people who hold to the "No Moral Legislation Fallacy" are walking contradictions. In other words, you can’t get away from the legislation of morality, no matter whose brand of moral principles is eventually imposed.

Therefore, after taking more of a rational look at this issue, I must conclude that if we abandon the legislation of morality (which is inherently impossible), we must, in turn, abandon the rule of law itself. If you’d like to see a recipe of disaster for societal stability, just take a stroll down that street.

In closing, I’d like to alter the Q&A piece from presidential debate #2 to even better illustrate the inherent weakness of the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy." As you’ll quickly notice, I’ve made two alterations [for illustration purposes ONLY]: (1) The subject of Degenhart’s question is a pro-choice voter; & (2) Kerry is a CONSISTENT pro-life politician (i.e., if a thing is wrong personally, then it should follow that it is wrong whereas public policy is concerned).
Buckle up and watch what happens here . . .

GIBSON:
"Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart."

DEGENHART:
"Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is the sole right/choice of a woman and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would be able to support that very right, what would you say to that person?"

KERRY:
"I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect your right to believe what you want to believe even though I strongly disagree with your stance. As for me, I'm a Catholic, and I was raised a Catholic. I was even an altar boy (can you believe that . . . me, an altar boy?). Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, and it leads me today (because I want the votes of a certain constituency). But I can't take what is an article of belief for you personally and legislate it on someone who doesn't share that belief, be they unborn child, pro-lifer, whatever. I can't do that. But I can still be your President and have this difference of belief with you. As a president, however, I have to represent all the people in the nation, including the unborn children who have no voice but us. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-life, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights . . . that's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping the unborn child, politically correct or not."

Beloved, the same principle that was at work in the true account of that exchange was at work in the above illustration, even though it was admittedly modified to make the point. Kerry’s philosophy that he is personally against abortion, but wouldn’t legislate his views on others who disagree, was completely erroneous. In the first place, by refusing to display the principled discipline to stand up against his pro-abortion constituency and defend the unborn, he was essentially imposing his views on others – the babies – by default!!! Do not forget that, my friend!! In one sense they are the only innocent ones in this situation. Secondly, as previously stated, we do (and must) legislate morality. Our entire system of criminal law and much of our civil law is based on our moral beliefs, from larceny to rape to pre-meditated murder.

As has also been said here, if we don’t legislate morality, we forfeit the rule of law, societal stability, and ordered liberty all together. Think, right now, about other moral issues that we legislate on but which are not necessarily hot-button issues at the moment . . . murder – rape – assault & battery – petit theft . . . etc. Are you seeing what’s happening? I want you to think through these things!!

When someone gives you a variation of the "No-Moral-Legislation Fallacy," ask them one question . . . do you vote?? If they vote, they begin to engage in self-refutation, and that is something that we need to point out more often in our day. When you do get the chance to pull back the curtains, be sure to expose the error in a loving manner. More specifically, do so with a question rather than a statement (i.e., Maybe I’m missing something, but …). This is just a point of tactical wisdom that tends to disarm a tension-filled situation, even if you and your friend vehemently disagree on the issue.

By the way, would you like to know who else argued against "moral legislation?" You’re going to need to buckle up for this one - - - - - - - American slave owners during the time period of the civil war! That’s right! I’d encourage you to think about that one on your drive home today.

Remember: it’s not IF, but WHOSE . . .

A Counseling Tip

2005-07-21T17:58:00.001-04:00

During a counseling session (regardless of the setting/comtext), and specifically during the initial session, it is always better to do more listening than speaking. Think with me for a moment (and forgive me for not producing a more tactful illustration) – you tell me what’s more rational . . . (1) to digest information before it is properly ingested; or (2) to ingest/gain the information and then digest that information appropriately? I hope that you chose option #2, as I did.

I distinctively recall Dr. Jerry M. Windsor telling us in class that for some odd reason, he found in his counseling experience that it was usually the 3rd issue (given by the counseled in the initial session) that turned out to be the real problem. Let’s create an imaginary scenario in order to better grasp this point. You (& your spouse) are the counselors – Suzie, the subtle (yet rebellious) varsity cheerleader has asked you if she could meet with you ASAP. Let’s say that the presenting problem is an issue of acceptance/rejection . . . or a parental issue . . . check it out – if you too hastily begin to unload whereas the “presenting” problem is concerned, you may never discover that Suzie is carrying the child of the all-star athlete!! While that is indeed a radical illustration, I believe it makes the point. In these situations, take your time, listen, and learn to discern the difference between that which is symptomatic and that which is problematic. There is a difference!

CD Burning

2005-07-21T17:32:00.003-04:00

Question: "My friends and I like to share music. Is it wrong to burn CDs or download music for free online? And if burning whole CDs is stealing, what about making mixed CDs (with a bunch of favorite songs) for friends?"

Answer: Click on the following link to discover what Mark Matlock has to say on this pressing topic (I agree with him here):

http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/2004/004/11.30.html

--

Not bad for 'Christianity Astray,' huh?? ;~)

Short Quotes to Toss About in Your Mind

2005-07-21T17:24:00.003-04:00

"When it comes to truth, ‘tolerance’ is a travesty; when it comes to personal relationships, it’s a virtue." –Hank Hanegraaff

"Controversy for the sake of controversy is sin; controversy for the sake of truth is a Divine command." -Walter Martin

"Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone!!" -John Calvin

“When the plough man and the garage attendant know the Bible as well as the theologian does, and know it better than some contemporary theologians, then the desired awakening shall have already occurred." -Gordon H. Clark

"He who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs." -Phillip E. Johnson

"What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull-down empires." -J. Gresham Machen (1881-1936)

"There is nothing so likely to lead to error or heresy than to begin with the parts rather than the whole." -Dr. D. Martyn Lloyed-Jones

"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." -Elbert Hubbard

"Most people value themselves, but mostly for the wrong reasons." -Daniel Copeland

A Note on Teaching

2005-07-21T16:46:00.002-04:00

I would venture to say that much learning is “self-generated.” That is to say, the majority of stuff that ends up in our “gray-matter” will indeed be placed there by us!! No kidding! From a personal standpoint, I have learned much more in the field of my major since graduating than I did while I was there. Ultimately, however, this says more about me than it does regarding my alma mater (I truly appreciate my time there). Therefore, as teachers, we must teach the basics and teach them well so that our students are properly positioned to go on to self-directed, advanced learning.

It is better to master all of a little rather than none of a lot. Too many of us, whether teachers or students, seem to work from the opposite end of the spectrum; that is, we ingest too much from too many places in too brief of a time-period. The fall-out from this is that many teachers and students alike end up becoming a mile-wide and an inch deep. When you master the little bit that you are presently working with, then move on to the next piece of the puzzle. Students, it's the same with you, just from a perspective of learning. All of us would do well to master the basics (a rifle-approach) rather than surveying the whole landscape (a shotgun approach).