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.
 

Key Verse: John 17:17

Introduction: We are living in an age of relativism. By using that term, I am referring to the lack of absolutes that are to govern life and conduct. In relativism, right and wrong is not determined by objective truth, but by subjective opinion and pragmatic results. Thus, many believe that there is no absolute truth, and that in certain situations it is acceptable to lie. This may be more of a dilemma than it appears to be. Even many "Christians" do not believe in firm absolutes! It is therefore important to define and maintain truth biblically, and recognize how God views lying.

I. THE ORIGIN OF TRUTH

A. God the Father, the Author of Truth, John 17:3, 1 Jn. 1:5

B. God the Son, the Incarnation of Truth, John 1:14, John 14:6

C. God the Spirit, the Revelation of Truth, John 14:17, 16:13

D. Gods Word, the Inscription of Truth, John 17:17, 1 Cor. 2:10ff

II. THE OFFENSE OF FALSEHOOD

A. The Author of Falsehood, Gen. 3:1-5, John 8:44

B. The Illustrations of Falsehood:

1. Josephs brothers, Gen. 37:31-35
2. Potiphars wife, Gen. 39:13-18
3. Pharaoh, Exo. 9:28
4. Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5:4, 8

C. The Objection of Falsehood

1. Pro. 6:16-19
2. 1 John 2:21
3. Rev. 21:8, 27; 22:15. The reason liars cannot enter heaven is not because the sin of lying cannot be forgiven, but that this is the type of sin that keeps men from coming to the Savior.

D. The Interpretation of Falsehood

1. Every deviation from the truth is the result of sin.
    
2. A point can be reached where a person actually believes the lies which he / she invented. Adolph Hitler had a formula that went something like this: the bigger the lie, and the more outlandish it is, the more likely people will believe it.
    
3. A liar is a person who asserts something that is contrary to fact.
    
4. A person is a liar when he passes on misinformation, no matter what his motives or designs may be.

   All falsehood, as deviation from truth, is wrong per se

   Prejudices and false judgments are deviation from the truth

   Any deviation from truth is sin because falsehood is contrary to the character of God.
    

5. A person may display falsehood overtly in several ways:

   Design of deceiving or injuring somebody

   Design of benefiting somebody: Rahab hiding the two spies, telling children the shot from the doctor wont hurt; the reality of Santa Claus, Easter bunny,
    

6. Some points to consider: all need to be understood to be figurative or symbolic.

   Parables: 2 Sam. 12:1-6, a legitimate conveyor of truth.

   Fables: Judges 9:8-15. Can be used to illustrate truth. Be biblically discerning with the use of them, 1 Tim. 1:4, 4:7.

   Irony: 1 Kings 18:27.

   Novels, stories, which are half true and half fiction. Fine as long as this is known.

   Exaggeration. Can be a form of lying and should thus be avoided. It can be used as figure of speech "He eats like a horse," "He drives like Jehu," but cautiously.
    

7. The Three Ingredients of a Lie:

   There must be the communication of an untruth

   It must be known to us to be an untruth

   It must be with the will and intent to deceive him to whom we speak it, and to lead him into error.¹

III. THE EXAMINATION OF TRUTH:

 Is it Ever Right to Depart from Strict, Literal Truth?

A. An Affirmative Answer: "It is right to lie at times under certain conditions."

1. "There are rigid moralists who maintain that no circumstances can justify departure from strict and literal truth not even to deal with children, save life, to restrain madmen, to prevent criminal acts, or to deter an enemy in time of war. Most students of ethics, however, are in accord with sound human understanding and general practice which allow for exceptions."²
    
2. " you can tell the necessary falsehood deliberately and positively, from principle, with a good conscience void of offense toward men, and sincere in the sight of God."³
    
3. "Though the scriptural ethic places a premium on the sanctity of truth, the obligation to tell the truth has limits. One frequent example discussed in the history of truth-telling is the principle of telling the truth to whom truth is due (italics is the authors). Here truth is linked to justice in a way that allows for the righteous and honorable to lie when to tell the truth involves aiding and abetting injustice."⁴

B. A Negative Answer: "It is never right, under any circumstances, to deviate from the truth."

1. "No claim is more basic or ultimate than that of truth. We cannot regard any other sanction as higher on the altar of which truth may be sacrificed Is life itself more sacred than truth? God is love. But God is truth also. Love and truth do not conflict in Him and His truth is never curtailed or prejudiced in maintaining and promoting the interests of His love."⁵
    
2. "Sometimes the distinction is made between partial truth and untruth. Using the case of Samuels question to Yahweh about "How can I go? Saul will hear about it [that I have come to anoint David] and kill me" (1 Sam. 16:2). The Lords answer was, "Take an heifer with you and say, I have come to sacrifice to the Lord." (1 Sam. 16:2). Apparently Saul had forfeited his right to know all truth: nevertheless, Samuel had no right to speak an untruth. Lying is always wrong, whether it is the midwives lie (Exod. 1:17) or anyone elses lie. Scripture repeatedly warns against all falsehoods and commends truth-telling (Pss. 27:12; 35:11; Prov. 6:19; 14:15). Even failure to come forward as a witness is severely condemned in Leviticus 5:1."⁶
    
3. "Truthfulness may never be sacrificed for anything else. It cannot be sacrificed for love because love and truth do not conflict. They do not conflict in the nature of God. Love and truth are not antithetical in the actions of Christ. It cannot be sacrificed for life because God is the sovereign over life and no person can die one moment before God permits him to leave this world."⁷

IV. THE ENIGMA CONCERNING TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD

A. Some Biblical Challenges

1. An example of untruth: Rahab hiding the spies, Josh. 2 - She was spared because she feared God, not because of her lies about the spies An example of a half truth: Midwives and Pharoah, Exo. 1
    
2. It is not clearly stated that they lied! Most believe they did, but the truth could have been fabricated. "Ole whats her name is about to deliver want some more coffee?!" Again it was their fear of God for which they were blessed.
    
3. An example of concealment: 1 Sam. 16. Samuel was told by God to do one thing and say another. Samuel did what he said he came to do, 1 Sam. 16:4-5 Under some circumstances, it may be permissible to withhold part of the truth. Concealment is not the same as deception or lying, see II. D. 7 above.
    
4. An example of strategy for war: Josh. 8. There was concealment by the army, a feigned retreat, and a trap.
There was no action on Israels part contrary to fact or intent Truth does not demand that the other person understands everyting perfectly that we are saying or doing

Consider: Concerning some of the biblical materials, John Murray (see III. B. 1) states "We would require far more than Scripture provides to be able to take the position that under certain exigencies (necessities) we may speak untruth with our neighbor. In other words, the evidence is not available whereby we may justify deviation from the sustained requirement of the biblical witness that we put away falsehood and speak truth."⁸

B. Some Practical Challenges

1. What about estimates? ("What time is it?" You say "Quarter after 4" when it is really 4:16).
    
2. What about figures of speech? (your child asks, "Does the sun rise in the east or the west?" You answer "east" but it doesnt!)
    
3. What about approximations? ("How big was the fish?" "5 lbs." when it was really 5 lbs. 2 oz.
    
4. What about life and death issues? If you had been living during the Holocaust, and were hiding Jewish families in your basement, how would you have answered the Nazis if asked? What would you choose lying to the wicked, or allowing innocent victims to be slaughtered by the wicked? Is it more important to love the truth or love your neighbor? Are they incompatible? Is Gods truth contradictory?
    
5. What if our nation would pass a law demanding the life of your child, and they came to your door and asked where your child was?

Conclusion: John Frame made the following comment. "It is never right to disobey a command of God, and it is never sinful to do right."⁹ There are solutions. Seek them biblically!

End Notes:
[1] Ezekiel Hopkins, quoted in Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics, Academie, 1983, p. 224.
[2] Eavey, quoted by Dr. Manfred Kober, Truth: Honesty the Best Policy or Only Policy?  FBBC, p. 4
[3] Smyth, quoted by Dr. Manfred Kober, ibid., p. 4
[4] R. C. Sproul, The Biblical View of Submission to Constituted Authority in The Christian and American Law, Kregel Publications, 1998, p. 128.
[5] John Murray, Principles of Conduct, Eerdmans, 1957, p. 272.
[6] Kaiser, p. 95.
[7] Kober, p. 4.
[8] Murray, ibid., p. 146.
[9] John M. Frame, Medical Ethics, P & R, 1988, p. 9.
 

Key Verse: 1 John 2:15-16

Introduction: It was a challenge to name this chapter the "medium of society," as it seems so trivial. Television, and the movies and programs that are carried through it, form a philosophy, world view, standard and ethic which has a tremendous effect on society. As with music, it teaches a religion. And it is powerful! In television and movies, there is an experience attained through the senses of seeing and hearing, unlike other forms of entertainment such as reading novels or listening to music. Television can actually place you "in the realm" of the setting. Thus, it is a powerful teaching tool! As believers, we must understand the power and purpose of the modern screen, and obey biblical commands and principles concerning its use.

I. THE HISTORY OF TELEVISION AND MOVIES

A. Silent films, 1910-1920. Mainly characterized by humor and romance. Charlie Chaplin was a favorite of this era. Charlie Chaplin was barred from the U. S. A. because of his sympathies for Communism and dislike for America.¹

B. Classics, 1920-1940. Walt Disney began producing cartoon films such as "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." Dr. Kober, quoting the Encyclopedia Britannica: "In the U. S., the first documentaries were made under the Soviet influence and reflected the thinking of the extreme left wing The public, old as well as young, wanted to see how the wealthy lived, dressed and misbehaved, and skillful directors such as Cecil B. DeMille helped educate and entire nation in the boudoirs (bedrooms), lingerie and riotous living. The worship of the stars reached delirious proportions."²

C. Westerns and Crime films, 1940-1950. Advocated violence, murder,

D. Sex and scandals, 1950-1960. Hollywood turned more and more to sex and scandal to lure people back to movie houses, as the popularity had decreased.

E. Shock and splatter, 1970-1990. Films about Satanism and witchcraft (the Exorcist, Poltergeist, ) the supernatural (Star Wars), extra-terrestrials (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) blasphemous films (Jesus Christ Superstar) and hard core pornography were the prime movies for our "entertainment."

F. Science fiction and horror, 1990s - > . Science fiction and horror, often with strong occult and New Age themes, are prevalent. These are often coupled with nudity and other forms of immorality.

Consider: These periods cover a general pattern not a particular rule. For example, "The Robe" was also produced in the 1950-1960 era. Nevertheless, a pattern has accompanied each period with a definite philosophy that impacted the culture. As stated at the outset, this is a powerful teaching tool! Letters E and F can be demonstrated by the increase of interest in the occult over the past two decades, and the intense perversion that has permeated our culture. Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, couples living together outside of marriage, all reflect those axioms! The amount of violence has increased, and the brutality is unspeakable, akin to the Inquisition!

II. THE PHILOSOPHY OF TELEVISION AND MOVIES:

A. A distortion of reality. This is an inherent danger to children and teen-agers!

B. A dispensing of a sinful and worldly philosophy:

1. a promotion of materialism
2. a promotion of immorality
3. a promotion of violence
4. a promotion of profanity
5. a promotion of atheism and humanism
6. a promotion of the occult

C. A domination of personal life. Television dominates many homes, and schedules are built around programs!

D. A destroyer of time. We are called to be good stewards (1 Cor. 4:1-2) and to redeem time (Col. 4:5), not waste it. That is not to say one should NEVER watch ANYTHING on television there are some good things, such as WVCY TV 30, Christmas specials, but one must be a faithful steward of time, treasures, talents, mind, Reading your Bible is infinitely more important, and some good studies about Theology and Christian living are needful for spiritual growth. It is also far better to read some good Christian novels (there are many fine Christian novels that teach biblical values and sound truth) and devotionals to help rather than hinder your walk with the Lord, as entertainment may.

E. A distraction from corporate worship. It is not uncommon for Christians to disregard the worship services of the church to stay home for television.

F. A disturbance of family life. As stated previously, it becomes the family worship center, it detracts from communication and developing relationships, and is all to often the center of attention at meal time rather than family devotions and discussion.

G. A developer of juvenile aggression. What younger children see on television is "real" to them. A Stanford University psychologist, Albert Brandura, lists the following immediate effects of television violence:

1. It reduces viewer "inhibitions against violent, aggressive behavior."
    
2. It teacher viewers "forms of aggression - that is, giving them information about how to attack someone else when the occasion arises.
    
3. The ethical ending, in which the villain gets his desserts, does not antidote the violence that occurred before. It may keep viewers from reproducing villainy right away, but it does not make them forget how to do it. The ethical ending is just a suppresser of violence, it does not erase.³

Note the following report from Readers Digest:

1. TV violence produces lasting and serious harm
2. Those "action" cartoons on childrens programs are decidedly damaging
3. TV erodes inhibitions
4. The sheer quantity of TV watching by youngsters increases hurtful behavior and poor academic performance.⁴

H. A disruption of the learning process. Entertainment replaces learning, as watching replaces reading and thinking.

I. A degrading of morality, as it glorifies sex, violence, cf. Pt. 2, above

J. A deadening of activity. People, especially teens and children, should be productive. Instead of hours of inactivity in a mentally neutral mode, people should be exercising and disciplining their bodies and minds. They should be learning and developing talents such as playing a musical instrument with which to glorify and serve the Lord.

III. A THEOLOGY FOR TELEVISION AND MOVIES

Consider: On this point, please read the following verses which match letters A J in pt. II. Either by command, precept or principle, the Bible addresses every issue!

A. 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4 F. Deut. 6:6-7; Eph. 6:1-4

B. Col. 2:8; James 4:4 G. Pro. 20:11; 22:6; 22:15; 29:15

C. Exo. 20:3; Isaiah 45:18; Eph. 6:4 H. John 5:39; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Peter 3:15

D. Eph. 5:15; Col. 3:8 I. Psalm 101:3; 141:4; 1 Thes. 4:3-4

E. Matt. 6:21, 24 J. Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 4:1-2; 6:19

Conclusion: From this very brief summary, consider the impact of television and movies have had on our culture. Has it been used for the glory of God, or for the decadence of man?

End Notes:
[1] Sumner, Robert, Hollywood Cesspool, Sword of the Lord Publishers, p. 116-117, 120
[2] Griffith, Richard and Stanley William Reed, Motion Pictures in Encyclopedia , 1971, pp. 898-918
[3] Kober, quoting Krutza & Di Cocco, Facing the Issues 4 Contemporary Discussion Series, pp. 75-76
[4] Readers Digest, TV Violence: The Shocking New Evidence, January 1983.
 

 

Key Verse: Proverbs 20:1

Intro: The use of alcohol as a beverage is a major problem throughout the world, including the USA. Alcohol is responsible for appox. 66% of all fatal accidents; 70% of all murders; 50% of all rapes; 60% of child abuse and child molestation cases; and commits more people to the mental hospital than any other cause!

I. BIBLICAL POINTS TO PONDER

A.    Biblical Words:

1.  Heb. yayin is grape drink, wine alcoholic and non-alcoholic
2.  Shekar is unmixed wine, or strong drink
3.  Tirosh refers to fresh grape juice, called new or sweet wine
4.  Grk. Oinos corresponds with the Hebrew yayin above
5.  Sikera corresponds with the Hebrew shekar above
6.  Gleukos corresponds with the hebrew tirosh above

B.    Biblical Background:

1.  Wine, including fermented, was used in earlier times to purify water that was stored in cisterns and wells. That was a major use of it! It was mixed with water at a very low ratio, consisting of the lowest ration of (3 parts water to 1 part wine-which was the lowest acceptable ratio; this produced a drink that was 2.5-2.75% alcoholic) up to (20+ parts water to 1 part wine). Thus, it was a sub-alcoholic beverage, which is why pastors and deacons are "not given to wine," I Tim. 3:3; 8; Titus 1:7. In Prov.23:29-31 it speaks of those who "tarry long at the wine." This purification is not necessary in modern times--we have chlorine, sodium chlorohydrates,...

2.  Wine today is different than Biblical wine. "Strong drink...unmixed wine..." in Biblical times was only 3-11% alcohol. Those who drank this form of alcohol were considered barbaric! Distillation, which increases alcohol content, was not discovered until A.D. 1500. Modern wine has 9-11% alcohol; 80-100 proof whiskey and brandy has 40-50% alcohol; Biblically and culturally, these would have been unthinkable!

Consider: Dr. Norman Geisler writes this: "Christians ought not to drink wine, beer, or other beverages for they are actually strong drink and forbidden in Scripture. Even ancient pagans did not drink what Christians drink today."¹ The Bible condemns strong drink (remember, 3-11% alcohol?) which covers virtually all alcohol popular today. No Biblical defense can be used to support the consumption of alcohol!

C.    Biblical Examples of Alcohol Use:

1.  Gen. 9:20-24, Noah becomes intoxicated, and helps promote the first homosexual activity recorded in Scripture.

2.  Gen. 19:30ff, Lot's daughters encourage Lot to become intoxicated and commit incest, causing Lot to be father and grandfather of the same children.

3.  Esther 1:10ff, King Ahasuerus displays lewd, immoral behavior with his drinking companions and asks his wife to do unacceptable things. (Let's give Queen Vashti much credit-she said no, which cost her position in the kingdom!)

4.  1 Sam. 25:25; 36ff speaks of wicked Nabal, the drunken, vile husband of Abigail. Lest we judge Abigail harshly, likely the parents chose her mate-and she couldn't leave him!

Consider: I simply wanted to look at a few references to alcohol and it's result as stated in the Bible. Are any of these cases an example to follow? Do they demonstrate godliness? Which do you want to be-a homosexual? Fornicator? Immoral? Rude, lewd and "son of Belial?" That is the company you keep with alcohol! Is there anything commendable in these circumstances? NO!

D.    Biblical Warnings (Remember, we are speaking of Biblical wine and strong drink-that which is much weaker than alcohol today).

1.  Is. 5:11, "Woe to them that rise early in the morning, [that] they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, [till] wine inflames them!" inflame: of, pursue}.

2.  Rom. 13:13, "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in reveling and drunkenness, not in immorality and wantonness, not in strife and envying." {honestly: or, decently}.

3.  Gal. 5:19-21, drunkenness is a work of the flesh.

4.  Eph. 5:18, don't be drunk with wine, but be filled (controlled) by the Spirit.

5.  Rom. 14:21, don't cause others to stumble.

6.  I Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19-20, we are God's temple; we belong to God!

7.  I Cor. 6:12, we are not to be brought under the power, or authority/control, of anything other than the Lord Jesus Christ.

8.  I Cor. 6:10, those who are drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Consider: This is kind of a problem; when is a person a drunkard--once or habitually? Why don't they inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?

E.    Biblical Questions: what about the passages that seem to condone the use of alcohol?

1.  Remember foremost that the terms were different in biblical times than now!

2.  Isnt drunkenness condemned, not just partaking of alcohol, Deut. 21:20-21, 1 Cor. 5:11, 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19ff? Yes.

3.  What about 1 Tim. 5:23, Pro. 31:6, Luke 10:34? Does this justify alcohol? Yes. It is clear that alcohol (by biblical definitions!) was used for stomach problems, a sedative, and as an anti-septic. Wine was also used as a water purifier, as water would have bacteria as it was stored in cisterns.

4.  Didnt Jesus turn water into wine at the wedding of Cana in John 2? Yes. Again, the type of beverage is not the problem, but the alcoholic content of the beverage! Certainly Jesus would not have made wine powerful enough to intoxicate the guests (cf. Jn. 2:8ff; Isaiah 5:11, Habakkuk 2:15).

5.  In 1 Cor. 11:21, the believers were drunk at the Communion Table, which some say would indicate that there was real wine used in the Communion service. However, they were condemned to sickness and some to death, and not commended for it! And the drunkenness was not necessarily due to the Communion Service, but from the love feast which preceded it.

F.    Biblical Decision: should the believer drink alcohol today?

1.  Will drinking alcohol glorify God? 1 Cor. 10:31
2.  Will drinking alcohol exemplify my Christian testimony?
3.  Will drinking alcohol cause another to sin? 1 Cor. 8:13
4.  Could drinking alcohol enslave me? 1 Cor. 6:12
5.  Will drinking alcohol benefit me? 1 Cor. 6:12
6.  Will drinking alcohol defile my conscience? 1 Cor. 8:7-10
7.  Would drinking alcohol provide a positive or negative example for my children? Deut. 6:7-8
8.  In Bible times, beverages were few; we dont have that problem today.
9.  In Bible times, water was not pure. Today, it is (or most likely is!)
10. When an activity is doubtful, should you do it? Romans 14:23
11. There are anti-ceptics and other pharmaceutical drugs which care for medical problems which are far superior to wine.

Consider: Dr. Geisler states, "New Testament wine was basically a water purification method. It was not an unsafe liquor; it was a safe liquid. But in America purifying water with wine is unnecessary, and plenty of non-addictive beverages are available."²

II. PRACTICAL POINTS TO PONDER

A.    Personal Life:

1.  Liver, kidney, stomach and intestine damage; kills brain cells, decreases sex drive, may lead to coma, heart failure, causes cancer, creates loss of control,

2.  May lead to addiction, even if one begins as a "social" drinker. Consider the following account of what a six pack of beer costs: "Young people, that first beer may carry a cost far higher than the $5.00 you pay for a six pack. Let me tell you what it cost me:

• A career in the Air Force, because after six years I wanted to drink beer instead of report for duty
• An accounting career because I stole from my employer to buy beer
• A close relationship with my parents and sister because they dont drink
• A son and daughter. They refused any contact with me for 11 years. I last tried to talk with them in October 1997, and they want no part of me.
• A close relationship with my wife and another son because my wife doesnt drink
• Friends. I used and abused them until they had enough and cut me off
• A secure future. Im 53 with no savings, assets or insurance
• My drivers license
• Medical care. I fear what a doctor may find.
• My self respect. Im a loser and theres no reason to be sober.

Thirty-three years ago when I drank my first beer, I had dreams and plans. I had no idea that Id become a common laborer and a drunk in 1998. Before you start drinking, think where it may land you in 33 years Believe me, its not worth it."³

B.    Society Life

1.  Estimated 10,000,000 problem drinkers or alcoholics in the U. S. adult population
2.  Alcohol related deaths may run as high as 200,000 per year
3.  Alcohol abuse and alcoholism cost the U. S. about $50,000,000,000. In 1975 alone!
4.  One half of traffic fatalities and one third of traffic injuries are alcohol related
5.  A high percentage of child abusing parents have drinking problems
6.  A high correlation exists between alcohol and robbery, rape, assault, homicide and
domestic violence; and more than one third of suicides involve alcohol.
7.  Taxpayers spend $11.00 to offset each $1.00 paid in liquor revenue.⁴
8.  It is estimated that one out of every ten people who take one drink will become an alcoholic! Is it worth the risk?!

Conclusion: It is quite obvious that God does not desire the Christian to partake of alcohol. Though in some texts wine or strong drink were used in favorable terms (Num. 28:7, for a drink offering; Prov. 31:6, when used as medicinal/pain killer; Ps. 104:15, where the wine is sub-alcoholic and demonstrates the blessing of God for sustenance), it must be studied, taken into context, and consider the differences and purposes of wine then and now. This is vital!

There were two groups that were specifically stated in Scripture that voluntarily abstained from alcohol the Nazirites (Numbers 6:3-4) and the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35:1-11). It would seem as if this was a commendable decision!

It does not seem logical for a Christian to partake of alcohol in light of the biblical evidence, personal and social harm that may result, and the negative impact on ones Christian testimony. Many defend the partaking of alcohol, and ridicule those who promote abstinence. I would close with these warnings:

"Who hath woe? Who hath contentions? Who hath babbling? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine." Proverbs 23:29-30

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1.

"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God," Romans 14:12.

End Notes:
[1] Norman Geisler, A Christian Perspective on Wine Drinking, Bibliotheca Sacra January March, 1982, p. 51
[2] ibid., p. 54.
[3] That First Beer cost man his family, Career in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Thursday October 8, 1998, Section F
[4] Quoted in Geisler, p. 52.

 

I. DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS

A.    The Biblical Terms

1.  (ethos) meaning custom, manner, usage

a.  1 Cor. 15:33, .. evil communications corrupt " (personal meaning)
b.  John 19:40, " manner of the Jews " (cultural meaning)
c.  Luke 4:16, " and as his custom was " (religious meaning)

2.  (anostrophe) meaning manner of life

a.  James 3:13, " out of a good conversation "
b.  1 Peter 3:2, 16, " your chaste conversation "
c.  2 Peter 3:11, " all holy conversation "

B.    The Basic Concepts

1.  General ethics: the sign of right conduct.

2.  Biblical ethics: the discovery and systematic formulation of conduct as revealed in the Scriptures.

3.  Ethics concerns the laws which regulate our actions, and the norms of what we should and should not do

4.  Ethics convey the right principles. The action is as good as the authority on which it is based.

C.    Normative Ethics and Meta- Ethics (though distinct by definition, they are part of the same process. It basically deals with our actions / beliefs and the reason for them).

1.  Normative ethics deals with which actions are right and obligatory (objective).

2.  Meta-ethics is sub-divided:

a.  discussions about the meaning of ethical terms and concepts such as right, ought and good (philosophical).

b.  considerations of how ethical judgments can be justified or established (subjective - especially in a pluralistic culture).

D.    Descriptive and Prescriptive Language

1.  Descriptive language deals with what is actually done.

2.  Prescriptive language deals with what ought to be done setting a moral obligation.

Example: Johnny stole an apple (descriptive). Johnny should not steal (prescriptive).

E.    Degrees of Ethics

1.  Morally permissible means one may or may not do something and not incur any moral guilt. Examples: listening to classical music, eating chocolate, reading Tom Sawyer, ...

2.  Morally obligatory means there is a moral command which mandates or forbids an action. Examples: Mandate - Honor thy father and thy mother. Forbidden - Thou shalt not kill.

3.  Morally supererogatory actions are not duties, but are praiseworthy actions which go above and beyond the normal call of duty. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends," John 15:13.

F.    Dilemma in Ethics: some important perspectives

1.  An agent is moral if he does an act that is morally good or refrains from an act if it is morally bad. Dilemma: does not address the motive, Isa. 29:13, Hos. 6:6, Matt. 6:1ff.

2.  One acts morally correct if good comes from his action (consequences are the key). Dilemmas: may well lead to situation ethics. Who determines what is morally good? An action may be moral even if it fails (you may try to save a drowning child, but fail. Would it then cease to be morally good?)

Expln: It is crucial to understand that consequence or result of an action is not what makes an action moral. Is a robber morally right if a bank installs an alarm because he tried to rob it? The protection provided by the alarm may be good, but the robbers motives were bad!

G.    Demonstration of Biblical Ethics (each of these can be demonstrated in John 14:15)

1.  The person must have acted by choice, not compulsion (" if "
2.  The motives for action (" ye love Me ")
3.  The act must be morally right and proper (" keep my commandments ")

II. DECIPHERING AND DEVELOPMENT

A.    Proper Hermeneutics. In biblical ethics, proper hermeneutical methods are crucial as one develops personal and collective convictions. There are questions to be asked:

1.  Is the passage of Scripture interpreted accurately? (interpretation of the text)

2.  Is the passage a mandate, a choice or a principle? (interpretation of text)

3.  What was the setting and intent of the original writer? (interpretation of text)

4.  Is there a dispensational distinction? (interpretation of text)

5.  How does the passage fit modern culture? (application of the text)

6.  Can this passage be applied without contradicting other principles? (cohesion of the text) e. g. Acts 5:29 / Romans 13:1-7; 1 Timothy 5:19-20 / Hebrews 13:7, 17.

B.    Biblical Ethics in Our Pluralistic Culture

1.  Man is made in the image of God he possesses intellect, emotions, volition, and the ability to rule over the earth, cf. Gen. 1:26-28. Though marred by the fall, man still possesses His image, Gen. 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9. Man still has a NEED for God, and he knows it!

2.  Man is given a conscience to determine what is right and wrong, cf. Romans 2:14-15, which is convicted by the Holy Spirit when he sins, John 16:8-11. Of course, man has the ability to reject that conviction and sear his conscience, 1 Tim. 4:2 and / or have a defiled conscience, Titus 1:15. Though the word "conscience" is not used in 2 Peter 2, it describes the defiled or seared conscience well.

3.  Because of the Divine image (imago Dei) and the conscience God has given man, he is without excuse when he disobeys or denies God or His law, Romans 1:18-32. All are judged by His Word! This judgment may occur on the culture itself (e. g., note the flood, Gen. 6; Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen. 18; the fall of Israel, 2 Kings 17; and Judah, 2 Kings 25) because of their disobedience to Him. It may also fall on individuals (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Peter 2:1). Ultimately all the unredeemed will judged at the Great White Throne (Rev. 20:11ff) and all of the redeemed will give an account at the Bema Seat (Rom. 14:10-13; 1 Cor. 3:13-15).

4.  Thus, when our culture denies God and His Word, it doesnt negate their responsibility to obey Him! When critics of our American Heritage negate the biblical stand our fore-fathers took, and redefine our foundational documents (i. e.,the phrase separation of church and state is NOT in any of them) to say that Christianity has no place in government, they are and will be held liable when the documents relate to the laws of God.

C.    Personal Convictions from 1 Corinthians (Principles for Christian liberty)

1.  Does this activity bring glory to God, 10:31?
2.  Is this activity spiritually beneficial, 6:12?
3.  Is this activity enslaving, 6:12?
4.  Does this activity edify myself or another believer, 10:23?
5.  Could this activity hinder the growth of a fellow believer, 8:13?
6.  Does this activity defile my conscience, 8:7-10?