CANONIZATION

Pastor F. William Darrow

Notes From The Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School

Webster Dictionary definition: "a rule or law, as of a church; standard for judgment, as the canons of art; the authorized books of the Bible, a bishop’s assistant.

The Church In History by B.K. Kuiper gives this definition:

"a list" – a list of books that belong in the New Testament

In his book, A Systematic theology of the Christian Religion,, James Oliver Buswell said, "The canonicity of the Bible is the quality or character of the Scriptures by which they are our rule of faith and life, as the infallible Word of God. Canonicity thus is equivalent to authority, the divine authority of the Scriptures."

It must be understood that the canon of Scripture did not come from the approval of men or approval of church councils. When God through inspiration gave the Scriptures to men it was at that point they were canonized. It was THE WORD OF GOD.

In the last half of the second century, 2 heresies became a problem.

Gnosticism – Christ never dwelt on the earth in human form.

Montanism – Christ’s promise of a Comforter was not fulfilled at Pentecost but the coming of the Holy Spirit was at hand and the end of the world was near.

Out of this struggle with the two heresies came three things:

A creed, a canon, and an organization

It must be understood that God established His canon and not "THE CHURCH". The canon of Scripture does not get its authority from the church but the church gets its authority from the canon of Scripture. Remember that the books were inspired when written and thus canonical at that point.

In The Da Vinci Deception by Erwin W. Lutzer he lists six steps as to how the New Testament canon came to be. Though these steps are given later, I would like to quote his six steps here which may help one understand.

1. Letters from apostles were written and received in the churches; copies were made and circulated.

2. A growing group of books developed that were recognized as inspired Scripture. Important questions for their acceptance included: Was the book written by either an apostle or someone who knew the apostles and thus had the stamp of apostolic authority? Was it in harmony with other accepted doctrine?

3. By the end of the first century all twenty-seven books in our present canon had been written and received by the churches. Though some of the canonical lists were incomplete, this is not always to be interpreted as the rejection of some books. Often it simply means that some books were unknown in certain areas.

4. As an indication of both agreement and the widespread acceptance of the New Testament books, we should note that a generation after the end of the apostolic age, every book of the New Testament had been cited as authoritative by some church father.

5. Remaining doubt or debates over certain books continued into the fourth century. It bears repeating that as far as historians know, the first time the list of our twenty-seven books appears was in an Easter letter written by Athanasius, an outstanding leader of the church in AD 367.

6. The twenty-seven books of our New Testament were ratified by the Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Third Council of Carthage (AD 397).

FIRST CENTURY

When the church started in Acts 2 there were no New Testament writings. The title New Testament appears to have been used by an unknown writer against Montanism about 193 AD. The term was used regularly by Origen (185-254 AD) and later writers; The Incomparable Book by Dr. D.L.Brown.

Acts 2:42 says they "continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine". The Holy Spirit spoke to the church through them. They carried what we refer to as apostolic authority. In time the holy Spirit led them to write down the apostolic doctrines. That is where we get our New Testament. There is evidence in the book of Acts that the Apostles ruled on questions of major consequence concerning doctrine and practice. Acts 8:14, Acts 11:19-24, Acts 15:1-2

There were many letters and papers written in the early days of the church that were copied and passed around, but they were not all inspired. Only those that came to be recognized as inspired from God were canonized.

John confirmed this of Jesus’ ministry – John 21:25.

All the New Testament books were written from the time the church started in Acts 2 until around 95 AD when Revelation was completed. Several things must be considered. First, there were no printing presses so all these original writings had to be hand copied and then passed around so some churches may not have gotten certain books for a long period of time. This would explain why some books may not have been mentioned or used. There also was no headquarters for the church so geographical location played a big part. Judaism had the Temple in Jerusalem but the church was scattered. Christianity was an international religion. The churches were scattered from eastern Asia (1 Peter), western Asia (Revelation), and even Europe (Romans). From this it is easy to understand that not all churches immediately had copies of the various letters. Limitation on travel and communication affected the distribution as well. Obviously a method of selection and verification was important to the early church. As long as the apostles were still alive verification was not a problem but after John died it became different. There was a sort of round-robin circulation of books that steadily grew in number. (Colossians 4:16) By the end of the first century more than two thirds of our present New Testament books were considered inspired. Thus we must consider how those 27 books became known as the Inspired Word of God.

What became an issue then was which writings were the inspired Word of God and which were not. Not every writing, even by the apostles, was inspired.

Antiquity did not determine their inspiration.

For example, 1 Clement was written within the lifetime of the Apostle John but the writings of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp were never accepted as inspired.

In the early days, all of the divisions of Christianity – Roman, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox – agreed on the New Testament canon.

There has not been serious debate since the days of Athanasius, who prepared a list of the books accepted in his day.

The New Testament books were all written in the latter half of the first century A.D. and almost all of them were clearly known, reverenced, canonized, and collected well before a hundred years had passed.

Good evidence exists that within 50 years of their writing, the Gospels and the major Pauline Epistles were fully accepted as canonized.

Consider the period of time from 70 A.D. to 170 A.D.

This is a vital period in determining the canon because it is only one generation removed from the Apostles.

In the middle of the 2^nd century, there would have been some alive yet who had heard the Apostle John preach and teach.

The testimony of this period came from Clement (Bishop of Rome – 95 A.D.), Ignatius (Bishop of Anitoch – 117 A.D., and Polycarp.

In his book, 1 CLEMENT, Clement made mention of four of Paul’s Epistles (1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus) as well as James, John’s Gospel and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Clement also referred to the star appearing at Jesus’ birth, which he had to have gotten from Matthew.

Ignatius left us 7 letters from which we gain information. He referred to the Pauline Epistle of Ephesians by name. He references 1 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. He also refers to Matthew and John. He mentions the birth of Christ narratives, the Virgin Mary, the Davidic ancestry, the birth star, the Crucifixion with details, the Resurrection and Christ’s eating with the disciples; all of which came from the 4 Gospels.

Polycarp wrote a letter after the martyrdom of Ignatius, (108-117 A.D.). He refers to the Epistles of Paul implying authority. He referred to Matthew, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, 1 & 2 Peter and 1 John.

Basilides, the Alexandrian Gnostic (117-139 A.D.) also confirmed certain writings as Scripture. He spoke of 1 Corinthians, Romans, Matthew, Luke, John, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, and 1 Peter. Basilides’ error was not in accepting Scripture but in interpreting it to his own end.

The Ophites, one of the first Gnostic groups, referred to Matthew, Luke, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews and Revelation. While they used other writings, there is no indication they considered the other writings canonical.

Another work called the EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (author unknown) is the first orthodox writing to quote a book of the New Testament as Scripture. It quotes Matthew 20:16 with the phrase, "as it is written" prefixed. There also may be a reference to 1 & 2 Timothy.

Conclusion:

When this period closed, a bulk of the New Testament writings were already in this early age, known and used as profitable.

All the Gospels, except Mark (which parallels Matthew), all of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, James, 1 John, 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Revelation are witnessed to. This leaves only 2 & 3 John and Jude without attestation. There is no negative references to these, simply no mention.

SECOND PERIOD

The next period is from 120-170 A.D. Extensive writings by numerous others are available. They merely confirm views already established. Many false teachers come on the scene, but they also confirm certain books to be Scripture. Marcion, a noted Gnostic, had a list of books he considered canonized. His list contained an abbreviated copy of Luke, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and Philemon. He seemed to rely heavily on Paul’s writings and avoided Peter’s.

PAPIAS, the bishop in Asia Minor, also had a canonical list. He refers to Matthew, Mark, John, 1 John, 1 Peter and Revelation. He seemed to be opposite of Marcion and avoided Paul’s writings.

GNOSTIC VALENTINUS cites Ephesians, Matthew, Luke, John, Romans, Corinthians and Hebrews. His disciple, HERACHION, followed suit.

JUSTIN was martyred in 148 A.D. He clearly refers to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews and Revelation. He refers to well-defined copies of sacred books.

MURATORI (170 A.D.) had his own canon called the Muratorian Canon. The first lines are missing. It starts with Luke, Acts, 13 Epistles of Paul, Jude, 2 & 3 John and Revelation. He denies certain spurious books. He omits Hebrews, James, 1 John, and 2 Peter. This list is almost exactly like our 27 New Testament books today.

Several minor witnesses are, 2 Epistle of Clement, Dionysius, and Hegesippus. They add nothing to the total picture but confirm it by showing the use of all four Gospels, Acts, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, James, 1 Peter and Revelation.

The final witnesses of this period are actual translations of the New Testament into SYRIAC and LATIN.

The SYRIAC, also known as PHESHITO, is dated about 150 A.D. It was used in Syrian churches and contained all of the present New Testament canon, except 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation.

The OLD LATIN version dates also to the 2^nd century (150 A.D.) Carthage, Africa was the center of OLD LATIN CHRISTIANITY. The Old Latin version contained all our present canon except 2 Peter, James and Hebrews. Because there was a false APOCOLYPSE OF PETER abroad, the 2 Epistle of Peter was not to be lightly accepted.

Combining the two versions of the extreme East and extreme West at the early date of 170 A.D., we have just what we should expect from abundant other evidence – the present canon of the New Testament with no additions and the omission of only 2 Peter.

There was not even one book that gained any noticeable degree of recognition only to lose it later on. The Gospels and Paul’s Epistles gained immediate recognition. Other books were accepted in certain areas and yet not in others. Finally, they were all universally accepted. The last one to pass the test was 2 Peter.

TESTS FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

The four Gospels and the Epistles of Paul were widely accepted, so there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. From there we can use the principles laid down in the unquestioned books, in the undoubted teaching of Christ and the Apostles to assist in deciding questions where the evidence is more scanty.

Before I go into detail concerning the tests, I want to print a list of tests that is printed in General Biblical Introduction by Rev. H. S. Miller.

1. Divine authorship. Inspiration. Is it inspired? Was it given by God through the Spirit; through men; or did it come from man alone?

2. Human authorship. Was it written, edited, or endorsed by a prophet, or spokesman for God? (or Apostle – my addition)

3. Genuineness. Is it genuine? Can it be traced back to the time and to the writer from whom it professes to have come? Or, if the writer cannot be named positively, can it be shown to contain the same matter, in every essential point, as it contained when written?

4. Authenticity. Is it authentic? Is it true? Is it a record of actual facts?

5. Testimony. In modern times another test may be added: the testimony of the Jewish church, the early and later Christian church, the church councils, and the ancient versions of the Bible.

As you will note in the following material I will cover this in a little different way.

The first conclusion is that portions, at least of the New Testament, were written with the EXPECTATION that they were to be received and obeyed. Jesus declared in the Olivet Discourse that His words would never pass away (Matthew 24:35; Luke 21:33). It is obvious that the Apostles, by virtue of Christ’s resurrection, came early to belief in His words and acted upon them – to the death. The writings of the Apostles make the claim that they are authoritative and inspired. We come to the conclusion that Paul and the Apostles were conscious that they wrote as men inspired by God. The concept was "thus saith the Lord".

The second test was apostleship. Irenaeus had seen the Apostles and regarded them very highly. He wrote, "The apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus was sent forth from God, so then Christ is from God and the apostles from Christ." He, as well as others, believed that canonicity came by the authority of the Apostles. If the Apostles wrote it, it was from God. If an apostle did not write it, it was not in the canon.

Ephesians 2:20 – "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."

Ephesians 3:5 – "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

According to these verses, the Apostles laid the foundation of the church and that certainly would have included the giving of inspired Scripture. The early church fathers accepted the fact that the Apostles wrote with inspired authority. If an apostle wrote it, it was without question. This meant that the book either had to be written by an apostle or backed by one so that either way there was apostolic authority behind the book.

It is plain then that Matthew, John, and the 13 Pauline Epistles were widely and early accepted as canonical because they were written by Apostles. The problem comes with Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, James, 2 Peter and Jude. Without making a long discussion, we point out that Mark was a disciple of Peter and the Holy Spirit used Peter to give Mark information that he wrote under the inspiration of God. Thus, his material was apostolic. Luke, who authored the Gospel of Luke and Acts, was a disciple of Paul and thus also wrote under apostolic direction, inspired by God. Since Hebrews does not name an author, many then believe either Paul or an understudy wrote it. If an understudy wrote it, it would come back again to the apostolic authority of Paul. Since 2 Peter claims Peter’s authorship, that is not questioned. The problem is that there is not a lot of external evidence for 2 Peter. However, Jude does refer to 2 Peter, recognizing its apostolic authority. The little books of 2 & 3 John do have sufficient evidence of the Apostle John’s apostolic authority and such acceptance by others. The major problem with James and Jude is concerning who the two men were. Were they Apostles? There are at least two James’s and two Jude’s in the New Testament or possibly three of each. The problem of identifying the two may be why there was a question about putting them in the canon. James, the brother of John, was martyred and Judas Iscariot committed suicide so we know it was not these two apostles. It is also evident that there were two of the original twelve, named James and Jude, who were sons of Alphaeus (Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13). There is also a James and Jude who were half-brothers of Christ. The Roman Catholic view is that they were among the twelve because they would never accept the idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin and had more children. The common Protestant view is that the half-brothers of Jesus were cousins of the apostles James and Jude thus making them apostolic. My conclusion is that James and Jude were the sons of Alphaeus and of the original twelve thus making the authorship of the two books apostolic. Clement of Rome used the Epistle of James as did Hermas. James was also included in the Syriac version. Jude is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon. Tertullian referred to the Epistle of Jude as authoritative and written by Jude the Apostle. It is also possible that James and Jude, the half-brothers of Christ, were regarded as apostles though they were not originally of the twelve.

Then there is the question of Hebrews. Origen stated, "Who wrote the Epistle, in truth, God knows;" Origen basically believed that the thoughts are those of Paul, but the diction and phraseology are those of someone else who had been an understudy of Paul. Many of the ancients attributed the writing to Paul, making it apostolic. There is considerable outside evidence concerning Hebrew’s authenticity. Clement of Rome in 95 AD referred to it. Justin Martyr quoted it. The early Ophites and Valentinus also used it. There is a thought that Paul, being an apostle to the Gentiles, would never have been accepted by the Jews so he did not put his name on the book. If it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew dialect but later published in Greek, that could explain the difference in style. Tertullian believed that Barnabas may have written it deriving it from the Apostle Paul; thus making it apostolic.

The early church held the view that if it was inspired, it also was apostolic. If a book was part of the New Testament, it was recognized as inspired if it had been written by an apostle – either by himself or with the help of an understudy (amanuensis).

God’s providence, which watched over the preservation as well as the preparation of those sacred books, was doubtless a factor.

A third test was acceptance by the churches. "As the books circulated they had to gain acceptance by the churches. Actually there was no book that was doubted by any large number of churches that eventually was accepted into the canon." Basic Theology by Charles C. Ryrie.

A fourth test was conformity to the rule of faith, or was it consistent with the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles. For example, though the author of Hebrews is unknown, it is seen as an inspired exposition of how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament Law and its rituals.

Much of the above material is compiled from Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible by R. Laird Harris.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

"Early in the 4^th century Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340), as a historian reviews the situation in his Church History. He makes three classes; first, including the Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John is acknowledged; to these, if one likes, one may add the Apocalypse (Revelation). The second class is questioned but accepted by the majority: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. The third class of works to be decidedly rejected, contains the Acts of Paul, Hermes, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, Didache…The Incomparable Book by Dr. D.L. Brown

These spurious books were called pseudoepigraphical; that is, fraudulent writings.

Athanasius of Alexandria (AD 367) gives us the earliest list of New Testament books, which is exactly like our present New Testament. This list was in festal letters to the church. Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh MacDowell.

In the 5^th century, a letter, dated 414 AD, written by Jerome, accepted the New Testament books listed by Athanasius, a list that corresponds to today’s New Testament. Since the 4^th century, history, tradition, and worship have approved the canon of the New Testament. While there were some attempts to exclude or add some books, these 27 books have remained the non-negotiable New Testament Canon of Christendom. The Incomparable Book by Dr. D.L. Brown

"When at last the Church Council – the Synod of Hippo in AD 393 – listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded this previously established canonicity. (The ruling of the Synod of Hippo was re-promulgated four years later by the Third Synod of Carthage. 397 AD)" - F.F. Bruce

Since that time there has been no serious questioning of the twenty-seven accepted books of the New Testament by either Roman Catholic or Protestants. Even if a letter of Paul were discovered today, it would not be canonical because the canon has been determined long ago. Even more recent books written by cults have no claim to be part of the canon of Scripture no matter what their claims may be.

You may have heard, as I have, that Martin Luther believed that the book of James did not belong in the canon but here is his actual statement. "St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s Epistle – these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity. Basic Theology by Charles C. Ryrie.

NON-CANONICAL BOOKS

As the church councils became the functions of the Roman Catholic Church they eventually recognized some of the non-canonical books. However, the Reformers never accepted the non-canonical books as Scripture.

COUNSEL OF TRENT – POPE PAUL III – 1545-1563

Canonized: Tobit – Ecclesiasticus – Wisdom – Judith – 1 & 2 Maccabees – Baruch – Esther (Extra) – Daniel (Extra)

These books are referred to as APOCRYPHAL BOOKS, which means hidden or secret, but the term is used in the sense of rejected, or non-canonical. There are actually masses of these books. I would like to list some of these more well-known ones.

OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA – 15 books

1 & 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, 1 & 2 Maccabees.

While some of these are valuable for historical reasons, they were never considered canonical by the Jews and they are never quoted in the New Testament.

NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA – 16 books

The teachings of the Twelve Apostles, The Epistle of Barnabas, The First Epistle of Clement, the Second Epistle of Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, including Paul and Thecla, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, The Seven Epistles of Ignatius, The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, The Protevangelium of James, The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, The Gospel of Nicodemus, The Gospel of the Savior’s Infancy, and the History of Joseph the Carpenter.

PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL BOOKS (false writings)

These books are sometimes referred to as the WIDER APOCRYPHA or as APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE and were written from 200 BC to 200 AD.

OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

APOCALIPTIC BOOKS: The Book of Enoch, The Secrets of Enoch, The Apocalypse of Baruch, The Rest of the Words of Baruch, The Assumption of Moses, The Prophecy of Jeremiah, The Ascension of Isaiah, The Apocalypse of Elijah, The Sibylline Oracles, The Apocalypse of Esdras, The Apocalypse of Zephaniah.

LEGENDARY BOOKS: The Testament of Adam, The Book of Jubilees, The Testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Testament of Job, The Testament of Solomon, The Life of Asenath, The Penitence of Jannes and Jambres, The Apocalypse of Abraham.

BOOKS OF TEACHING: Magical Books of Moses, The Story of Achiacharus, cup-bearer to Esarhaddon, King of Persia.

POETICAL BOOKS: Psalms of Solomon and Additional to the Psalter.

NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

In this area some make two categories of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical because they are spurious (fakes or forgeries). The following list is of this nature:

Seven gospels of Andrew, Bartholomew, Barnabas, Matthias, Thomas, Peter, and Philip. Eight Acts of John, Paul, Peter, Andrew, Thomas, Matthias, Philip and Thaddaeus. Four Apocalypses of Peter, Paul, Thomas, John and the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.

The Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal books have been published in popular editions under such titles as The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden.

I want to use quotations from three of these books, which will explain why they were never accepted into the New Testament canon.

In the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, chapter 7 is the story of some sisters whose brother was bewitched by a woman and turned into a mule. The sisters came to the Virgin Mary for help: "Hereupon St. Mary was grieved at their case, and taking the Lord Jesus, put him upon the back of the mule. And said to her son, O Jesus Christ, restore according to thy extraordinary power this mule, and grant him to have again the shape of a man and a rational creature, as he had formerly. This was scarce said by the Lady Mary, but the mule immediately passed into a human form, and became a young man without any deformity." (7:24-26)

In the Epistle of Barnabas the Levitical dietary laws are discussed. "Neither shalt thou eat of the hyena; that is, again, be not an adulterer, nor a corrupter of others; neither be like to such. And wherefore so?—because that creature every year changes it kind, and is sometimes male and sometimes female." (9:8)

In the Gospel of Thomas: "Another time Jesus went forth into the street, and a boy running by, rushed upon his shoulder; at which Jesus being angry, said to him, thou shalt go no farther. And he instantly fell down dead." (2:7-9)

This information about the non-canonical books is quoted from A Dispensational Theology by Charles F. Baker.
 

IS INERRANCY ENOUGH?

(A defense of the KJV)

Pastor F. William Darrow

Notes From The Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School

 

After serving some 42 years as a pastor I have learned that things are constantly changing in the realm of the church. Trends and fads, yes, even in churches, come and go. Some are good some are bad. Change is a way of life but not always good. Allow me to give you an example.

I have attended many ordination councils over the years. Even in those, the evidence of trends and issues become prevalent. Areas that were questioned heavily 25 years ago do not even draw a question today. I remember years ago that a candidate would be grilled heavily over "verbal plenary inspiration". The candidate had to know and be able to explain that "inspiration" is God breathing into man the very words He wanted him to write. "Verbal" meaning that the Holy Spirit guided the writers of the Bible in the very words that they used. "Plenary" means fully or completely as to the fact that every word was inspired by God from beginning to end.

I am not sure when it started, but it seems to me that in the late sixties or seventies a new word, or at least a more frequently used word, came on the scene. That word is "inerrancy". In many doctrinal statements of more recent days the word "inerrancy" appears but not the phrase "verbal plenary inspiration". I began to question in my mind why the term "inerrancy" had replaced "verbal plenary inspiration" even though it is a fine word but it does not say enough. Since new versions of the Bible keep coming on the scene and some have become preferred over the old, tried and proven KJV, I have sought to read for answers. It has been a learning experience. One of which has helped me to understand why the term "verbal plenary inspiration" is no longer being used.

I also was at a conference where a speaker made the statement, as he held up his Bible, "inerrancy, no, infallibility yes". He did not believe that the present Bibles we have are inerrant, just infallible. What he meant by that is since we do not have the original manuscripts, which are inerrant, our translations are not inerrant but we have enough evidence from different old texts so at least we can say they are infallible, or trustworthy. I do not agree with this at all.

There are three basic techniques in Bible translation work. Quoting the National Religious Broadcasters, January 1996 issue, an article by Harry Conay: "With regard to popular Bible translation, we frequently use terms like formal equivalency (‘this is how we write what they wrote), dynamic equivalency (‘this is how we would say what they meant’), and paraphrasing (‘this is how I think their intent can be more clearly stated’). (Printed in the Foundation magazine, January-February 1996 issue).

The three techniques are:

1. Formal Equivalency

2. Dynamic Equivalency

3. Paraphrasing

Let me start from the bottom up. Paraphrasing is simply taking what the text says and rewriting it to what you think it says.

The big problem with paraphrasing is that it simply becomes the opinion of the translator as to what a passage means. Once you enter this area of practice it is no longer the Words of God but some individual’s opinion of what it says. A paraphrase is not a Bible translation but a commentary. A paraphrase should not be called a translation or even the Bible.

Myron Houghton, a professor at Faith Baptist Bible College, Ankeny, IA, made an explanation that helps understand the difference between a paraphrase and literal translations.

"A literal translation is based upon the idea that the purpose of a translation is to let the reader know what the Bible says rather than what the Bible means. Yet many modern readers use meaning-for-meaning versions and paraphrases because they think the meaning of the Bible has been made clear. In reality, it is the meaning of the translators that has been made clear." (Faith Pulpit July/August by Myron J. Houghton)

Dynamic Equivalency is not following a word-for-word translation but changing, adding, or subtracting from the original to make it flow as the translator sees fit. It is a step up from paraphrasing. Dr. D.A.Waite defines it in his book on Defending the King James Version page 89, as " 'Dynamic' implies 'change' or 'movement.' These versions take a sort of idiomatic rendering from Hebrew or Greek into English. It is idiomatic in the sense that they didn't take a word-for-word method (even when it made good sense), trying to make the words in the Hebrew or Greek equal to the words in the English. Instead they added to what was there, changed what was there and/or subtracted from what was there." Robert J. Barnet in his book The Word of God on Trial, page 24, uses another name for it; calling it "concept inspiration". He said, "The author of a paraphrase is not trying to communicate word-level truth. He is giving us his own interpretation of what he thinks the Bible means. He is giving us concept-level communication." Dr. D.A.Waite has a study available of examples where the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION uses this method some 4,000 times, the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION 6,653 times and the NEW KING JAMES VERSION over 2,000 times. (Page 105, Defending The King James Version).

The AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION of 1901 followed strict formal equivalency. However our issue with the 1901 ASV has to do with the text from which it was translated. The NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION translators followed dynamic equivalency so were much more loose in their translating. They utilized dynamic equivalency to the degree that their work is almost a running paraphrase and not a translation. Dynamic Equivalency, therefore, allows for a great deal of subjectivity on the part of the translators to interpret the biblical text. (Touch Not the Unclean Thing by David Sorenson – page 239)

The third method is Formal Equivalency, or sometimes called, Verbal Equivalency. This method of translation takes the Greek and Hebrew words and renders them as closely as possible into English. This is the method used by the King James translators and is certainly a superior method.

"In favor of using modern English, it should be noted that the Bible was written in the language of the day. The New Testament, for example, was written in koine, or common Greek. And we do not normally use thee, thou, and ye in our speech today. On the other hand, thee and thou distinguished you in the singular from ye which is you in the plural. Sometimes the correct interpretation of a passage is helped by knowing the difference between the plural or singular use of you." (Faith Pulpit – July/August 2006 by Myron J. Houghton)

The King James Bible is the only English translation today that follows this strict accurate literalness.

It should be understood that in any translation, there has to be some diversion from the literal to make the sentences flow.

"It is understood that all translating from one language to another is a mixture of literal rendering as well as allowance for cultural idioms and forms of syntax." (Touch Not the Unclean Thing by David Sorenson – page 121)

"Of course, no English translation can always adhere to this pattern and achieve understandable sentences. Sometimes words must be added to make a sentence clear in English. Nevertheless, a literal translation would identify those added words, usually by placing them in italics." (Faith Pulpit July/August 2006 by Myron J. Houghton)

However, one still must push for literalicy.

Perhaps here is the place to mention where Dynamic Equivalency came from. Eugene Nida has been associated with the American Bible Society and the United Bible Society since 1946. He was instrumental in the development of the first edition of the United Bible Society Greek Test. He was the Translation Research Coordinator of the United Bible Society from 1970 to 1980. It was Eugene Nida who widely popularized the notion of Dynamic Equivalency. Following are listed his views on religion and communication:

1. God’s revelation involved limitations.

2. Biblical revelation is not absolute and all divine revelation is essentially incarnational.

3. Even if a truth is given only in words, it has no real validity until it has been translated into life.

4. The words are in a sense nothing in and of themselves.

5. The word is void unless related to experience.

These quotations reflect a direct repudiation of the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. (Touch Not the Unclean Thing by David Sorenson – page 121)

Dr. D.A.Waite in his book, Defending The King James Version, page 98 says "If you take a DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY approach to translation as a technique instead of verbal equivalency or formal equivalency--that is, the forms and the words being rendered from Hebrew or Greek into English as closely as possible--if you take the position that it really doesn't matter what the words are, what difference does it make which text you use? What difference does the Greek or Hebrew text make? You can change it any time you wish."

I refer again to the article in the National Religious Broadcasters by Harry Conay, printed in the Foundation magazine, "The more one descends on this scale from literalism to paraphrase, the more editorial interpretation takes place--and with it greater potential for human bias and error. It has been common practice for translators and editors to stress their truthfulness to the original language based on a study of extant manuscripts; few have had the hubris to inform readers they have deliberately altered, added to, and otherwise improved God's Word, until now." This is the evaluation of a man who at one time championed DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY but now gives a clear warning concerning where it leads.

David Cloud in his book Myths About Modern Bible Versions indicates that there are six different names used for dynamic equivalency and we list them here.

1. THOUGHT OR IDEA TRANSLATIONS

This is the attempt to convey the general thoughts of the original text not the literal words spoken by God.

2. PARAPHRASING

The general thoughts of the Bible are to be rephrased in modern colloquial language. There is no significant difference between dynamic equivalency and paraphrasing.

3. IMPACT TRANSLATION

Dynamic equivalency attempts to understand exactly HOW THE ORIGINAL HEARERS of scripture were impressed and then create the same impression in modern hearers. An example of this is to translate certain statements as swear words when there are actually no swear words in the Bible.

4. IDIOMATIC TRANSLATION

This is an attempt to use the culture idioms of the language of the modern people instead of the culture to whom it was originally written.

5. FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY TRANSLATIONS

This is an idea-by-idea translating; arranging the Bible text in ways understandable to today’s readers of English. The order of the words and style are determined by today’s English usage by the literal Hebrew or Greek.

6. COMMON LANGUAGE TRANSLATION

This is an attempt by the translators to put the Bible into the range of the receptor language that is common both to the educated and to the uneducated. In some cases they tried to bring the translation down to a fourth-grade level. This is a drastic departure from the original text.

David Cloud also summarized the principles of dynamic equivalency into three principles.

1. It aims to translate thoughts rather than words.

2. It aims to use simple language and style.

3. It aims to make the Bible entirely understandable to non-Christians.

He then lists three reasons why this is dangerous.

1. GOD’S WORD IS NOT TO BE CHANGED BY ANYONE.

Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Once man changes what God said it is no longer the Words of God. It is worthy to note William Tyndale’s statement:

"I will call God to record against the day we should appear before our Lord Jesus, to give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered one syllable of God’s Word against my conscience nor would (I so alter it) this day, if all that is in the earth, whether it be pleasure, honor, or riches, might be given me."

2. MEN ARE BORN AGAIN THROUGH INCORRUPTIBLE SEED; AND PARAPHRASES ARE CORRUPT.

1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

It is the pure Word of God by which men experience a supernatural birth.

3. PARAPHRASES PRODUCE CONFUSION IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO READ THEM

1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

When someone reads a Common Language version they can become very confused when it does not say the same thing as a literal translation.

David Cloud also points out that dynamic equivalency avoids common ecclesiastical terms. This is the principle which has resulted in Today’s English Version’s obliteration of such "churchy" terms as "justification," "sanctification," "saint," "redemption," "propitiation," "elder," "deacon," and "bishop". Terms such as those have been changed to ones the unsaved can understand, even when this has meant changing or weakening the meaning. Consider some examples of The Contemporary English Version:

Revelation 22:21

KJV: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all"

CEV: "I pray that the Lord Jesus will be kind to all of you"

Ephesians 2:8

KJV: "For by grace are ye saved through faith".

CEV: "You were saved by faith by in God’s kindness"

Romans 3:24

KJV: "being justified freely"

CEV: "he freely accepts us"

Another point made by David Cloud is that dynamic equivalency adopts the wording of the translation to the culture of the receptor people. Dynamic equivalency translators believe that real communication is broken when the difference between Biblical and modern culture is not considered. Though dynamic equivalency advocates claim to honor the meaning of the Bible text, in practice they do not! In practice they change, twist, and pervert Scripture. A man working in northern India was translating and because the people did not know what a sacrificial lamb was he translated John 1:29 as "Behold the cock of God, which taketh away the sin of the world". These people had sacrificed roosters to their gods in the past. Another example is given where they did not know what snow was. Therefore they translated Isaiah 1:18, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as the inside of a coconut". In the United Bible Society’s translation in the Ulithian language of the South Pacific, "dove" was changed to a local bird called a "gigi".

It is not the job of the translators to become the evangelist and preacher in the process of his work as a translator. In any country the answer is to do what historically has always been done. Explanatory notes can be added, dictionaries made, commentaries written and other teaching tools produced. This is far wiser than changing the Word of God.

Let me finish with an illustration that contrasts the New International Version with the King James Bible.

KJV - 1 Corinthians 7:36 "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry."

NIV – 1 Corinthians 7:36 "If any thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married."

Green’s literal translation.

The problem here is that the NIV translators interpreted the word VIRGIN to mean someone to whom a man is engaged. Actually, I believe the term virgin is referring to a man’s virgin daughter. They have taken extreme license to the text in giving it their interpretation. When someone picks up the NIV and reads it he is going to assume he is reading the Word of God, when he is not. He is reading what some translator thought the text meant. That is an example of dynamic equivalency rather than formal equivalency. A translator has the responsibility to give the literal translation and let the readers determine what it means.

My conclusion is that if you use the DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCY method of translation, you can no longer believe in VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION. That is why there has been a quiet and subtle dissolving of the term and replacing it with INERRANCY. I believe the Bible is VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRED and that demands a VERBAL EQUIVALENCY translation. Are you using the WORD OF GOD or someone’s opinion of what God said?
 

INFANTICIDE

Pastor F. William Darrow

Notes From The Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School

Much of the material in this paper is taken from Vital Signs by Mark Blocher.

Webster’s definition of "infanticide": "The murder of an infant; one who murders an infant.

I remember when growing up that one day my mother kept a little baby girl through the day and maybe even overnight. Her name was Elaine. Her parents were active members of our little country church. The father also happened to be a brother to my older sister’s husband. I remember my mother saying to my father that something was wrong with little Elaine because her eyes did not seem to be functioning normally. I no longer remember the details of events and can only relate some of the outcome. It was eventually learned that little Elaine was born with a brain tumor. In time, she was taken to Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota where surgery was performed. At this point I cannot recall the success or failure of that surgery. What I do remember is this; she was not totally blind but had very little sight. She was never able to attend school even though she seemed to have a very unusual learning ability. She seemed to understand salvation at an extremely young age and did accept Christ at an early age. She memorized Scripture and would readily quote verses at church. In my memory right now I can hear her quoting Luke 19:10, "For the son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." She was the most loved person in our church. At a very young age, however, she went home to be with the Lord.

If Elaine had been born in Nazi Germany, she probably would have been euthanized. If she had been born today, though brain surgery is much advanced, the doctors might have suggested that her parents have her euthanized because, in some people’s thinking, she could never have any quality of life. May I just say that Elaine was a happy little girl who enjoyed life and gave joy to those around her.

We live in a day when there is very little regard for human life. Richard Lamm, the former governor of Colorado, said he did not approve of giving intensive medical treatment and therapy to babies who could only roll over after a full year of treatment. He believed that the money budgeted for such children would be better spent on those of higher quality of life. He also suggested that the elderly who are chronically ill and require ongoing, expensive medical care should accept their "duty to die" and get out of the way.

Peter Singer, a bioethicist from Australia, suggests that some newborns be killed at birth because they do not meet his criteria of "personhood".

Francis Crick, the Nobel laureate for his discovery of DNA, suggests that we not declare a newborn a "person" until three days after birth, following a battery of tests. He also wants society to adopt a mandatory death law for people past the age of 80.

James Watson, the man who cracked the genetic code, said, "If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice…the doctor could allow the child to die if the parent so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering". – Abortion Questions & Answers – Dr. & Mrs. Willke

Some doctors disagree and believe it should be 30 days after birth. The pro-abortionist, Joseph Fletcher, would use the I.Q. measurement and allow those with an I.Q. under 20, perhaps up to 40, to be declared non-human.

Miss Barbara Smoker, President of the National Secular Society and Vice-Chairman of the British Humanist Association, wrote: "The situation of a newborn baby is very different from that of the same baby, even a few weeks later…At birth the baby is only a potential human being and at that point it is surely the humane and sensible thing that the life of any baby with obvious severe defects, whether of body or brain, should be quietly snuffed out by the doctor or midwife. This should not be a decision referred to the family who are too emotionally involved; though in borderline cases the doctor’s knowledge of the family situation would be one of the factors taken into account."

Are there any examples of this? YES!

In 1982, Baby Doe of Bloomington, Indiana, was born with Down’s syndrome. His food pipe and windpipe were connected which could have been corrected with surgery. Because the baby had Down’s syndrome, the parents refused all treatment and the baby died. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the parent’s decision.

Also in 1982, Baby Jane Doe was born in New York with spina bifida and a potential hydrocephalus. Normally, they would have closed the spinal defect and put a shunt in to prevent hydrocephalus. When the parents learned that the baby might be mentally retarded, they refused surgery. Miraculously, skin grew over the spinal defect, closing it. The parents then agreed to have a shunt put in. While the baby lived, a federal judge ruled that the parents had the right to let the baby die without treatment.

In both of these cases, the parents were granted the right to take the baby’s life by withholding treatment. The babies were refused treatment because of a handicap.

Information taken from Abortion Questions and Answers by Dr. And Mrs. Willke.

Is there such a thing as life so burdensome that death is better? Are some lives "not worthy of being lived"? A growing number of medical professionals question whether they should spend time and money for imperiled newborns. They are uncertain where we should continue to use the technology currently implemented to save newborns when such babies often require a lifetime of special medical care. Can a society with limited health care resources be committed to saving everybody, regardless of the kind of life the child will lead?

Is it reasonable to save a severely handicapped child from death only to give him a life of surgeries, dependence on others, and being tethered to machines? Is it fair to save that life when it places enormous financial and emotional hardships on the family?

Neonatalogists and pediatricians face serious dilemmas. Unlike older patients, who have a medical history and are usually able to communicate for themselves, newborns represent a "clean slate". There is no backdrop to which progress or regress can be compared. The infant cannot tell us where he hurts. Prognosis is difficult since basic motor skills, mental capacity, and so on will not appear for months, if at all. Consequently, caregivers often face the difficulty of determining the long-term outcome of certain treatments. A physician may have no way of knowing whether his, or her, tiny patient will be a miracle survivor or a medical "burden".

A number of studies have been conducted to determine the "quality of life" enjoyed by neonatal survivors. A study conducted at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in Pennsylvania researched a group of children born between 1973 and 1976 who had been born with serious impairments. The study followed them until they were forty months old. Thirty-five percent were handicapped, 17 percent severely. The severe handicaps included major visual impairments, hydrocephalus, and spastic quadriplegia, a form of cerebral palsy in which all four limbs are spastic. The study also revealed that those children who had been ventilated at birth (put on a respirator) had a 72 percent handicap rate, whereas those who had not been ventilated had a 19 percent handicap rate.

One might conclude that aggressive medical treatment of handicapped newborns is detrimental. In general, newborns less than 1000 grams(2.204 lbs.) birth weight who survive after aggressive neonatal care do have an increased likelihood of lifelong impairments or handicaps. However, many children survive with few or no impairments – children who would not have lived without aggressive care. What a tragedy if they were euthanized.

Children born at less than 650 grams (1.432 lbs.), generally have a 20 percent survival rate, with a 90 percent change of lifelong disability. That means 90 percent of those families will face continual medical treatment, surgeries, and so on if the child survives. However, there is a 10 percent chance that he will survive with no serious, lifelong disabilities.

Physicians attempt to inform parents of the facts of their baby’s condition and to present whatever relevant medical options are available; yet parents’ beliefs or biases may permit a broader or narrower range of options than are considered "standard medical judgment". The child’s parents may opt to proceed with aggressive care, citing a belief that human life is sacred. Or, where a baby’s medical condition requires no neonatal ICU but a fairly routine surgical procedure, his parents may choose to allow him to die. In both situations, physicians play the role not only of medical technologists, but also of ethicists.

Then there are the decisions made regarding the fate of handicapped babies before they are born. Genetic screening techniques, such as Alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP) or Chorion Villus sampling (CVS) are used to detect congenital defects pre-natally. Therefore, some obstetricians practice defensive medicine, advising patients about the availability of tests and abortion should a defect be found. That makes it difficult for a pro-life doctor to suggest having the tests, knowing he cannot recommend abortion. In a study of women’s attitudes regarding aborting "defective" pre-born children, only 71 out of 300 said they would not abort a child even if there were conclusive evidence that it would be handicapped.

Here is where the problem is. Our society has come to the belief that the quality of the human race can be improved by controlling human procreation and by excluding those who do not meet certain criteria. This philosophy was adopted by Nazi doctors and has even been practiced in Romania. To exclude babies that do not fit a particular design is no different than Hitler’s exterminative medicine practice against the Jews and other "undesirables".

Infanticide is made to look humane. Many in the medical field are willing to let babies die if they are uncertain about their future. Many would say the baby does not know what is going on and does not know the burden he brings upon a family. Such thinking holds very little respect for human life.

This side of eternity we do not know why God allows severely handicapped babies to be born; who will never live a normal life, but it is still wrong to kill what God allowed. We should never forget that because of the sin of the human race, we live in a society that is marred by that sin. This is not saying that it is the direct sin of the parents that causes these situations but the penalty of sin on the entire human race. God told Adam and Eve that if they sinned they would die. That dying process affects every human being at some stage of life, some even before birth.

A survey of pediatricians in Massachusetts revealed that 54 percent do not recommend surgery for infants. Sixty-six percent would not recommend surgery for infants born with spina bifida. One survey of Bay Area pediatricians found that 22 percent would recommend non-treatment for infants with Down’s syndrome, but no other complications and 50 percent would recommend non-treatment in cases where other complications were present. Only 1 percent of pediatricians and 3 percent of surgeons indicated that they could not accept a non-treatment decision in those situations.

Some would go a step further if the law would allow it. They would do something to end the baby’s life. Raymond Duff states, "Once a decision for non-treatment has been made, the means taken do not really matter. Euthanasia, either passive or active, can be a safe and human choice in dealing with selective tragedies". It basically comes down to this, once death has been chosen for an infant, the means of death is irrelevant. We are speaking of physician-administered death. Michael Tooley, professor of philosophy at the University of Western Australia, argues that in order to have a right to something, we must be capable of desiring that thing. He contends that the defective newborn does not have a right to life because he is incapable of wanting that.

Part of the trouble with this logic is that it affects any other handicapped individuals, particularly those with mental disabilities. This philosophy would even affect the elderly who become no longer able to take care of themselves. The sad thing is that many disabled people exhibit a greater desire to live than some who are considered physically healthy.

Infanticide is a denial of personhood. It is a matter of the weak destroyed by the powerful. The medical profession takes on the role of executioner. It is hard for a family to make these decisions when they are unprepared for the emotions and the blur of activity that characterize the neonatal intensive care unit, not to mention the bombardment of medical terminology and intensity of the therapies under consideration. Since most parents have no experience with the complexities of neonatal care, it is relatively easy for a physician to guide them to the decisions he deems best, rather than allowing them to decide for themselves after hearing the full range of options. It would be wise for parents to find out what their doctor’s position is toward sanctity of human life before they get into these decisions. In fact, it would be wise to know if a doctor is pro-life before you chose one.

Some neonatal units operate under a standard some call the "wait until near certainty" approach. This assumes that every member is viable and should receive treatment until it is certain that he will die. When that point is reached, parents may opt for non-treatment or the termination of treatment. Most believers would agree with this position.

It comes down to a debate between two concepts: 1. Are we willing to accept the babies God gives to us? and/or, 2. Should all babies be allowed to live? The moral integrity of the medical community should be such that we can trust them not to kill when unable to heal. Very often the thinking of a believer will be different from the unsaved world.

WHAT IS GOD’S VIEW OF LIFE

Exodus 21:22-24 - If someone caused a woman to miscarry, whether it was accidental or intentional, the law demanded a penalty. God, in the Law, demonstrated a high regard for the life of an unborn baby. It seems to indicate that if this was intentional, he might have to give his life in return.

Isaiah 49:1,5; 44:24 - Isaiah made it plain that from the womb he was called. Prenatal life is precious to God.

Jeremiah 1:5 - Before Jeremiah was completely formed in the womb he was ordained by God.

Psalm 139:13-16 – The Psalmist made it plain that he was covered by God in the womb. God knew his substance before he was ever born.

Exodus 23:7 – The Law says that the "innocent are not to be slain".

Luke 1:15,41 – John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb.

Our conclusion must be that God is the Creator of life from the moment of conception and therefore, man has no right to destroy that life, even if it seems imperfect. Infanticide is killing what God has created.

I want to conclude with this true story. On May 30, 2006, my wife and I were watching It’s a Miracle on Independent Television. The story centered on a lady expecting a baby girl. Before the baby was due the mother went into extreme pain with labor contractions. The grandmother of the baby rushed her daughter to the hospital. Upon arrival there was no heartbeat of the baby. The staff immediately induced labor and in a few minutes the baby girl was born. The staff worked for 65 minutes trying to revive the baby and finally gave up. The grandmother was allowed to hold the baby and finally the mother held the baby to say a final goodbye. Suddenly the baby began to move. Immediately the staff moved her into the ICU. The heartbeat grew stronger and stronger. Each day the doctor would say, "Now you must understand that she will never do…(this or that)." The very next day the baby would do what the doctor said she would never do. The doctor said she will never respond, she will never feel, she will never eat, she will be blind, she will never walk and she will have severe brain damage. At the showing that we were watching I believe the girl was around five or six years old. She was very healthy and very bright. Those who believe in the practice of infanticide would never have allowed this baby to live. The point is, man cannot always determine if all these possible disabilities will be true, so there can be no infanticide but every baby should be treated with hope.
 

EUTHANASIA

Pastor F. William Darrow

Notes From The Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School

WEBSTER’S DEFINITION: 1. An easy or painless death; 2. the method of affecting it; 3. the putting of a person to death painlessly, especially one in a hopeless condition.

The concept usually is related to those who are terminally ill and desire to die rather than continue suffering.

We live in a wonderful age. We can get into an airplane and in a few hours fly around the world. We can get into an automobile and drive in comfort with air conditioning or heat. Thus, we could go on and on about the amazing comforts in which we live. In the medical field we have learned to treat so many ailments and diseases that longevity of life has actually been extended a few years. While this seems wonderful, it has also created a lot of problems. Because we can treat ailments and diseases that used to be fatal we now have to decide when to continue to treat illnesses or to allow a person to die. Thus, with the high cost of medical treatment and the high cost of nursing homes it has caused some to think there is an easy way out. It is called Euthanasia and along with it is Assisted Suicide. In this paper we will attempt to address both, relating the problems and, hopefully, the Biblical answers. Many in the medical field have attempted to step into the shoes of God.

Much of the following information is taken from Vital Signs by Mark Blocher.

EUTHANAISA DEFINED

There are 2 distinct concepts involving euthanasia – passive and active. Doing nothing or withholding medical treatment so that the individual dies brings about passive euthanasia. Thus, the person is not killed by direct action but by deliberate neglect. Active euthanasia is when an individual is directly put to death in order to eliminate further suffering. Active euthanasia is also called MERCY KILLING. Therefore, euthanasia can be defined as withholding treatment for the purpose of bringing about or hastening death, or taking deliberate steps to end life when that person is not imminently dying.

THE RIGHT TO DIE

Some believe that every individual has the right to control his own life and that extends to the RIGHT TO END IT, or as some would say, the RIGHT TO DEATH UPON DEMAND. It used to be that the right to die meant the right to die a natural death without burdensome medical care, but not so anymore.

In modern day with the ability of medical equipment to sustain life, it is possible to overtreat. Therefore, the right to die is to withhold life support. The desire to die of "natural causes" rather than prolonging the process by technology is what most people mean when they talk about the right to die.

If the right to die upon demand does exist, one’s health or life expectancy has little to do with the decision. If this is true even a healthy individual could choose to take his own life if life to him did not seem tolerable. But the Judeo-Christian teaching holds that suicide is self-murder and is prohibited by "Thou shalt not kill". Exodus 20:13

Let us consider several Biblical arguments against the claim of a right to die.

God is sovereign, and He alone determines the length of our days.

I Samuel 2:6 Psalm 39:4

A believer does not own himself because we are purchased by God.

I Corinthians 6:19-10

Since we are owned by God, we have no right to dispose of ourselves.

To consider the right to die as an inalienable right enjoyed under the Constitution of the United States of America means that it should be self-evident and derived from a law higher than man’s law.

Inalienable rights come from God. This is why Christianity’s significant influence upon cultures causes them to outlaw suicide, murder, and mercy killings.

Physical life is intrinsically good, not merely a means to another good. Our bodies are an integral aspect of our being. If this were not true, God would not resurrect our body but just make new ones. Since this is true, we should not speak of continued body life as a burden.

If physical life is not inherently good, why do we attempt to extend this earthly life? Why go to a doctor, why eat nutritious food, and why exercise? We may not know our purpose on earth but that does not mean there is no purpose. We may not desire to live a life devoid of "quality", but the notion of quality of life is purely subjective and arbitrary.

Philippians 1:21 "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

On the other hand, the right to die may be legitimate if it means the right to refuse burdensome medical treatment when terminally ill, if such treatment is of little or no benefit. Here is where in overtreatment the medical field tries to be God. We are rational, thinking beings to which God grants the power to make certain decisions.

Another factor involved here is that the individual, as approved by the state, has the right to determine how his or her death should be managed. The state should not be given the power to determine how and when its citizens die.

The ultimate claim to our lives belongs not to us, or to the state, but to God. Our problem is man’s acceptance of humanism, which holds that man is the center of all things.

Consider what modern technology has given us: Conception control to prevent wrongful conception. Failing that, abortion to prevent wrongful birth. Infanticide prevents wrongful life, and the "solution" to the wrongful burden of growing old is the right to die.

DEATH WITH DIGNITY

For the most part, there is no dignity to death. Death is the consequence of sin. Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Every observance of death, whether it is a dead animal in middle of the road or a human corpse in a funeral home, it reminds us of the terrible price of rebellion against God. Any effort on man’s part to make death dignified attempts to hide the consequences of sin, thereby denying a need for salvation in Christ.

We must never forget that hell is a real place and is a place of eternal torment. It is a separation from God for all eternity for those who reject the Lord Jesus Christ. Revelation 20:15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." What is dignified about that? Suppose someone does have a terminal disease and they are encouraged to "die with dignity". They will wake up in hell. Whether it is family or friends that encourage them to "die with dignity", they are sending that person to hell. Or if a doctor assists in the action they are sending that person to hell. As long as someone is alive there is always a chance that there may be a little window where they can get saved. On the other hand, if a believer lives out his life letting God make the decision when to take him home to be with Him, that is dying with dignity. 2 Corinthians 5:8 "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

IMMINENT DEATH

The term "imminent death" refers to an individual’s impending death. It simply means that death could happen at any time judging from the medical conditions. Usually that means that death can be expected within hours or days. Some in the euthanasia movement want to apply the term "imminent death" to a person diagnosed as "terminally ill". Here is the problem, how certain is the prognosis? Many people have survived such dire predictions, which shows that the concept of imminent death is not definitive nor is it an absolute fact. Some have been told they had less than a year to live, only to survive for many more years. It still comes down to this; man is trying to play God. By redefining terms, those who want euthanasia will say a "terminally ill" person is facing "imminent death", thus he should be allowed to take a pill and die with "dignity". Not only is this not letting God be sovereign, but it could mean cheating a person out of several years on earth if man’s prognosis is wrong.

ARTIFICIAL LIFE SUPPORT

No amount of medical expertise or technology can keep a person alive indefinitely when there is no spontaneous major organ function. If all major organ systems cease functioning spontaneously and initial effort at resuscitation are unsuccessful, no amount of technology can keep that person alive. What we are talking about here is the major organs. We are not talking about food, water, and oxygen.

In recent years the courts have stepped in to define what is life support and have now defined life support to include fluids, food and oxygen. They are classifying these three basic functions now as artificial medical treatment. Medical therapies and procedures are usually applied to people with particular symptoms and pathologies. However, food and water have only one purpose – to physically sustain life, whether the person is sick or not. Without nutrition and fluids, anyone’s prognosis is death. Therefore, food and water are not medical treatment. Two different cases came into prominence where the courts allowed the food and water to be withheld, that of Nancy Cruzan and Terri Schiavo. Of course, that produced death.

The medicalizing of food and water represents a radical departure from previous standards of care. Before they were considered basic care, not medical. Basically to withhold food and water to hasten death is euthanasia.

Treatment with oxygen is similar. Also known as ventilators, respirators have become an important part of intensive care and emergency room medicine. Respirators are used to sustain a sufficient level of oxygen in the bloodstream in order to maintain the integrity of major organ systems. When a person’s medical condition deteriorates to the point where he is no longer able to breathe on his own and death appears imminent, respirator support becomes artificial life support. However, the issue of removing the respirator is determined by the overall condition of the patient, not the nature of the machine. The issue is not whether the means of providing oxygen is artificial, but whether the machine is a benefit to the patient. What is the individual’s condition? Is death imminent?

WITHHOLDING OR WITHDRAWING TREATMENT

Are we required to squeeze every possible moment out of life? Is it moral to take a person off a respirator, antibiotics, kidney dialysis, or insulin?

Death is a reality of life. Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." That is not a principle of medical ethics but a fact of life. Death is not simply a technical matter involving the failure of the body to sustain life; it is a spiritual reality. God is ultimately in control. When medicine reaches its limit and can no longer sustain life, we must accept the fact that death will occur. Because of that, we may have to make a decision to withdraw a particular treatment or decide not to begin a new one.

Decisions concerning the withdrawal or withholding of treatment should be based primarily on the individual’s physical condition. For example, decisions regarding a mentally disabled patient’s treatment should not be affected by his disability. Medical benefit should be the primary goal. If a medical treatment would not benefit a patient, then it should be withheld or not instituted.

A decision might be made this way: Will this patient leave the hospital alive if this particular therapy is provided? If the answer is no, if death is unavoidable, then a decision to withhold the therapy would not be euthanasia. However, when treatment is withheld or withdrawn specifically to hasten or cause death, then the moral boundary of euthanasia has been crossed.

Here is where the problem comes in. A growing number of people believe there has to be a certain quality of life. A person must be able to communicate with people, have meaningful relationships, participate in the joys and struggles of life, and have the ability to be self-directed and independent. Therefore, when one is no longer capable of participating in that kind of life, the common response is that physical life should end. They would say that when a person reaches this point, he has lost his quality of life. Those who do not experience this quality of life are typically referred to as "vegetables" or "vegetating organisms".

The conclusion of this kind of thinking is that people in nursing homes or long-term care facilities are candidates for feeding tube removal. We are not talking about people who are facing imminent death. We are talking about those who are not dying fast enough. Although the proponents of euthanasia view such lives as useless, many caregivers are understandably wary of hastening anyone’s death.

It is not always wrong to withdraw or withhold a feeding tube. Here is a suggested list of when it may be acceptable to remove a feeding tube.

When a person is no longer capable of benefiting from continued feeding.

When continued feeding would increase the suffering of an imminently dying person.

When the purpose for withdrawing or withholding nutrition is to make the person comfortable, not to hasten or cause death.

When the person’s family or advocate agrees to the decision.

What about removing a respirator? When it is clear that death is near because other major organ systems are shutting down, to remove a respirator would not be euthanasia. When all brain function has ceased it will not be long before the other organ systems begin to deteriorate. The central issue concerning respirators is whether or not they provide the patient the benefit intended, which is a medical issue. If the respirator is not providing any benefit to the patient’s physical integrity and he will not survive even with support, then its removal would not be the cause of death. Respirators do not keep people alive.

DO NOT RESUSCITATE ORDERS

As believers, we do not endorse the practice of continuing futile medical treatment or multiple resuscitations just to extract a few more moments or days of earthly life. Generally speaking when a person suffers multiple cardiac arrests in succession, further resuscitative efforts may be withheld. Such an order should be indicated on medical charts. In the case of a terminally ill person who is at home, this information should be conveyed to any caregivers involved.

ASSISTED SUICIDE

We have entered a strange period in man’s thinking. Suicide itself has gone on since the creation of man. God in His sovereignty created us and it is His choice as to when and how we die. For a person to take his own life is self-murder. Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill". Basically anyone has the ability to take his own life no matter how wrong it may be.

Strangely enough with all the humanistic ideas that are being propagated today such as, "the right to die", "death with dignity", "imminent death", etc., people are rethinking suicide and are attempting to make it dignified by having a doctor administer a lethal shot or give lethal pills. This is not "mercy killing"; it is assisted suicide, which is homicide. Some would like to make it legal so that if a person has a terminal disease they would be spared painful treatments and pain in general connected with the terminal illness.

When killing is done to end suffering, it is frequently called mercy killing. Relief from suffering, not malice, is the principal motivation. Mercy killing implies that death is preferable to life. It also assumes that no other form of relief is available. Because of the advances in modern medicine most pain can be treated. Another problem surfaces here. A doctor may administer a drug for pain that can shorten life. That is not euthanasia but simple maintenance of a problem. This is not mercy killing. However, if a doctor increased those dosages more than needed to hasten death that is mercy killing.

Those who want assisted suicide to be legalized use circular reasoning. The people who want legal assisted suicide are competent patients. The assumption is that someone who wants to end his life is mentally competent, but existing law contradicts that claim. People who fail in their suicide attempts are generally admitted to hospital for psychiatric care, because society thinks a mentally healthy person would not want to die. Assisted suicide claims the opposite.

In 1991, voters in Washington State defeated an assisted suicide bill. During the campaign, supporters admitted that the right of a terminally ill, competent person to request physician assistance in dying would also apply to an incompetent person. If measures like that are adopted, physicians will be allowed, perhaps obligated, to administer lethal injections to patients who they believe would want to die if able to make that decision. In reality, why does a competent person have any more right to die than an incompetent person?

Just to show you how far reaching these things can go we note the Netherlands where physician-assisted and physician-administered death are already legal. One of every 6 deaths is the result of a doctor-administered lethal injection. Originally it was for terminally ill patients only who requested it. Now it is common for lethal injections to be administered to unconscious or incompetent patients. Ironically, those Dutch physicians are doing what their World War II counterparts refused to do during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. In his book, The Nazi Doctors, Robert J. Lifton describes how the Dutch medical community resisted Nazi orders to hand over patient records and participate in exterminative medicine. None cooperated. Many were sent to concentration camps for their refusal.

Now we have sympathizers in the USA. Suffering is common to mankind because we live in a fallen world. It is the physician’s role to eliminate suffering as best he can, but it is not his role to eliminate the sufferer. We must not give physicians the legal or moral authority to decide who live or dies.

OREGON’S PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUIDICE

The following information is taken from Biblical Bioethics Advisor by Mark Blocher.

Oregon is the only state in the USA where physicians may legally provide patients with prescriptions for lethal medications for the purpose of suicide. It has been legal in Oregon since 1997. Since then 263 people have obtained and used legally prescribed lethal medications. Thirty-eight of those were in 2005. Since reporting by doctors is voluntary the figures are probably much higher. By law the doctor can only prescribe lethal medications to those patients who are terminally ill and mentally competent to make their own medical decisions. This is supposed to ensure that mentally unstable patients do not commit suicide with physician assistance. Is this followed?

On October 17, 2005 a story in The Oregonian told of Kate Cheney an 85 year-old woman with growing dementia. Her psychiatrists noted she could not remember recent events and people, including the names of her hospice nurses or her new doctor and her family appeared to be pressuring her. A lethal dose of medication was authorized for Cheney. This was requested by her daughter. While Cheney did not meet the state law requirements of being competent she died of a lethal dose of medication given for that purpose.

When a patient does not meet the requirements and their doctor turns them down, they search until they find a doctor who will disregard the law. Wesley Smith wrote, "Once the legal view of killing is shifted from automatically bad to possibly good it becomes virtually impossible to restrict physician-assisted suicide. It is the children of aging parents who pressure increasingly dependent parents to take this action.

The law only requires physicians to file a report and the DHS to periodically review death certificates. The state claims to conduct telephone interviews with prescribing physicians to ascertain whether details contained in the doctor’s report correspond with information accompanying the death certificate.

One of the problems is that sometimes there are complications when a person takes the drugs such as vomiting, seizures, etc. Physicians were present in only 19 percent of the cases. Why is this important? In nearly 20 percent of Dutch assisted suicides, complications were so severe that doctors intervened by administering lethal injections. So much for dying in peace. Is this death with dignity?

The Oregon law says that lethal prescriptions can only be given to patients whose life expectancy is six months or less. In one instance a patient was still alive 17 months after obtaining a prescription and another was still alive two years later. No one can really predict when a person will die. One cannot help but wonder how many family birthday parties, graduations and weddings that person who lived another two years took in.

The doctor is in control. He possesses the power to decide whether the patient is terminally ill and mentally competent and whether to issue the prescription. No matter what you call it, assisted suicide is killing a human being. This goes against the oath taken by a doctor for medical practice. Protecting human life has been among the highest duties of the physician and the central focus of medicine.

Let me finish by saying this, I have heard many people say after a friend or loved one died that they are now at peace and suffering is over. If they were saved that is certainly true but if that person was not saved he went to an early hell. If that person had been allowed to live a few more months, maybe God would have opened a window where that person could have gotten saved. Taking a life by euthanasia is playing God and not allowing a sovereign God to take life at His choosing.

CONCLUSION

Because many in the science and medical fields accept the false teaching of evolution they dream of a concept where man will preserve the earth forever and man will be so able to control his destiny to the point that he will live eternally. God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, is disbelieved and ignored. If man is going to be able to do that, he must kill everything that is imperfect and keep only the best. The more man has learned in the medical world the more complicated life has become. Man has not solved problems, but has created problems. Unsaved man will continue to push for greater longevity at any cost. Decision making at the exit gates of life will become more complex and ethically demanding. Believers need to take a stand for life.

TWO INTERESTING CLIPPINGS

Sword of the Lord, 5/19/06

POLL CLAIMS AMERICANS BACK ASSISTED SUICIDE; VOTES AND OTHERS SAY

A new poll conducted by CBS News claims that a majority of Americans favor assisted suicide. However, previous polls show the nation is at least split on the issue or opposed to the grisly practice. And what may matter most, actual ballot votes on the subject have Americans strongly opposed.

The CBS News poll asked respondents if they thought "a doctor (should) be allowed to assist the person in taking their own life" who "has a disease that will ultimately destroy their mind or body and they want to take their own life."

…56 percent of Americans said yes, and 37 percent said no…

Conducted by Angus Reid, the poll surveyed 1,229 American adults from January 20-25.

However, an August 2005 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found Americans opposed assisted suicide by a 48-44 percentage margin….

But what may matter most is what Americans decide at the polls when asked to determine if assisted suicide should be legalized.

While voters in Oregon twice approved allowing assisted suicide there, other states have shown that assisted suicide is not popular.

In Michigan in 1998, voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure to legalize assisted suicide by a wide 71 to 29 percent margin. In 2000, Maine voters defeated an assisted suicide proposal by 51-49 percent. California voters rejected an assisted suicide proposal by a 54 to 46 percent margin in 1992.

GERMAN NURSE WHO EUTHANIZED TWENTY-NINE PATIENTS TO STAND TRIAL

A German nurse who is accused of killing…29 patients, many through involuntary euthanasia, is scheduled to go on trial soon. Stephan L., a 27-year-old who has been named the "Angel of Death" in the German media, has admitted to giving lethal injections to 16 elderly patients at a local hospital and is likely responsible for 13 more.

Herbert Pollert, the lead prosecutor, said autopsies have been performed on 42 former patients at a hospital in the Bavarian town of Sonthofen, and he has sufficient evidence to charge Stephan.

Stephan now faces 16 counts of murder and 12 counts of manslaughter as well as one count of assisted suicide.

The victims all died during the 17 months Stephen worked at the clinic, and most of the patients were above the age of 75, though one was as young as 40…

Stephan has told police he killed the people out of "compassion" for the elderly patients. But Wilhelm Seitz, an attorney for the victims’ families, told AFP (French Press Agency) they didn’t want to die.