Ethics and Biblical Law

Sovereign Grace Family Church

1 view

August 14, 2023

00:05: Welcome, good evening, and we are back to round two of Introduction to Christian Ethics.
00:16: Hopefully you all had the opportunity to go through your reading.
00:20: If you have not gotten your book, the book reading last week was chapters one to four, which is the most reading I'm going to ask you to do this term.
00:33: The rest of the weeks, there are two chapters this week, two chapters next week, and then one chapter each because there's only 12 chapters in a relatively small book.
00:43: So if you got through the four chapters, then the rest of the reading should be fairly easy for you.
00:49: And if you're a little bit behind, you have plenty of time to catch up.
00:54: As I said, it's not a super long read.
00:58: Want to very quickly go over a few of the things that we talked about last week for two reasons.
01:06: One, to bring us up to speed, but also in regard to your notes, because this week, there is a quiz that will be distributed online that you will do.
01:19: Remember, I said there's gonna be two quizzes in this class and a final.
01:22: So there will be a quiz that goes out this week, and it will include some of what we talked about last week, as well as some of what we're gonna talk about tonight.
01:29: But I thought I would just remind you of a few of the things we talked about last week, just so that you have these things fresh in your mind for when the quiz comes.
01:40: We talked about Christian ethics, and we talked about the difference between ethics and morals.
01:49: And if you'll remember in making that distinction, well, actually, we'll do this.
01:58: What is the distinction? Does anyone remember? Yes, Mike.
02:03: That's right.
02:04: The one deals with ought and the foundations of right and wrong.
02:10: And the other deals with what we see expressed among a people, the morals of a society or the morals of a group, ought and is.
02:18: It's very good.
02:19: All right.
02:19: So does anybody remember where the word ethics comes from? That is right.
02:27: But the Greek word was ethos, and it does originally refer to a stall or a place for housing animals, something that is firmly fixed is the idea.
02:39: That's where we get the word ethos.
02:40: What about the word moral? Mores or mores, where we get the idea of the attitude or behavior of a people.
02:51: What are the morals of a society? Very good.
02:55: Now, we asked the question last week, why study ethics? And I want to give you the answer.
03:02: You can write this down or just go back to the video later if you need.
03:07: The reason why we study, if you'll remember, is to help us conform our understanding to the perfect standard of God, to help us conform our understanding to the perfect standard of God.
03:21: What Bible verse comes to mind when you hear that? Which says, amen.
03:45: And notice he didn't look down once.
03:48: Star student right there.
03:50: Very good, brother.
03:51: So the point in that text that I wanted to reference into this is where it says, do not be conformed to this world, but rather to be transformed by the renewal of our mind.
04:06: And so why do we study ethics? So that we conform our understanding to God rather than to the world.
04:14: So ultimately, it's a practical application of Romans 12, 1 and 2, seeking to better conform ourselves to God and to his standard.
04:27: Now, what is, last week we talked about the subject of goodness.
04:31: What is the standard of goodness? Yeah, this one is fairly easy.
04:40: The standard of goodness from a biblical perspective is God.
04:44: He is the standard.
04:46: His word, his commands become the standard for our understanding of goodness or virtue.
04:56: And we could talk about what is goodness.
05:01: We say goodness and virtue are, in this sense, synonymous.
05:04: They are talking about the same thing.
05:08: And God is the standard.
05:09: Hello, David.
05:11: It's fine.
05:12: God is the standard of goodness and the ultimate standard of all virtue.
05:21: Last thing from last week, we talked about the concept of subjective versus objective.
05:27: And this is something I don't think I made super clear last week.
05:30: So I wanted to clarify tonight.
05:33: And that is this.
05:36: Ultimately, all truth is subjective to God and objective for us, because God is the objective standard.
05:49: But it's subject to him.
05:54: All right.
05:54: All truth is subjective to God, meaning it is subject to him.
06:01: But it is objective for us in that God is the standard.
06:07: So truth does not conform to us.
06:11: Truth conforms to God as the standard.
06:13: And we, therefore, must conform to him.
06:17: So when we talk about subjectivity and objectivity, particularly in regard to the subject of truth, we're talking about what is in relation to God as the perfect standard.
06:31: Well, tonight we are going to go into my favorite part of this class.
06:39: And it's my favorite part of this class because it deals with a theological subject in regard to how we understand biblical law.
06:49: And we're going to see how there are differing understandings of how God's law is to be interpreted and applied.
06:59: And I hope that through the course of this evening, I will be able to at least in some fashion persuade you into my understanding of God's law and how we are to interpret it.
07:13: But I do not kid myself and think that I have had all the answers.
07:18: I know that I don't.
07:20: But I know that this particular subject is one that often brings a lot of confusion for believers.
07:27: I told this story last Thursday because I was at Set Free and I was preaching on Colossians Chapter 2, where the Apostle Paul says, do not let anyone pass judgment on you in relation to food or drink or the new moons or feast days or Sabbaths.
07:46: And I was talking about how there was a man a few years ago at Set Free who was part of the Hebrew Roots movement, which means that he held to the view that all of those Old Testament laws had to be maintained in the new covenant.
08:01: And so he would argue with me about whether or not Christians really had the liberty to eat pork or to violate the feast days or not keep the Sabbath and those things.
08:14: And we would have that conversation.
08:15: And he was very adamant that I was wrong.
08:19: And I was very adamant that he was wrong.
08:21: But the reason why I bring that up simply is because I know that this is a subject upon which people disagree.
08:29: However, if we're going to talk about conforming to a standard, we have to know what the standard is.
08:35: And therefore, part of this class is coming to a conclusion about what does God say about certain things.
08:43: And so that's what we're going to talk about tonight.
08:46: Three parts to tonight's class.
08:48: Each class I try to I'm a sucker for three points.
08:53: So three parts tonight.
08:55: We're going to look at perspectives on biblical law.
08:57: That's our first part.
08:59: Part two, we're going to look at grace as an excuse for sin.
09:04: And you'll see why that fits together with the first part.
09:09: And then part three, and this may come after the break, depending on time, we're going to look at subjectivity, or excuse me, subjectivism and Romans 14.
09:20: So if you have your syllabus, this is all in the syllabus.
09:24: This is our three point outline for tonight.
09:28: And as you can tell, I have a PowerPoint presentation tonight.
09:33: It's really not a PowerPoint.
09:34: It's more I just have some videos loaded in here.
09:37: We are going to watch a video.
09:40: It's only a couple of minutes to get us into this subject really quickly.
09:46: This is from a television show called the West Wing.
09:52: And I've used this video for years in regard to biblical law.
09:58: I hope that it makes sense when I'm when you're watching it, why I would choose this video.
10:03: There is a word in here that is not kosher.
10:09: I will try to pause it before it gets there.
10:12: But that's just understand that it's there and it's part of the video.
10:15: But I do have, I have it marked out where I can stop it.
10:19: So we'll try to hope that that doesn't happen.
10:24: Excuse me.
10:25: Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.
10:32: Thank you very much.
10:38: I wish I could spend more than a few minutes with you, but the polls don't close in the east for another hour.
10:42: There are plenty of election results still left to falsify.
10:46: You know, with so many people participating in the political and social debate through call-in shows, it's a good idea to be reminded every once in a while.
10:58: It's a good idea to be reminded of the awesome impact.
11:03: The awesome impact.
11:07: I'm sorry, you're Dr.
11:09: Janet Jacobs, right? Yes, sir.
11:12: It's good to have you here.
11:14: Thank you.
11:14: The awesome impact of the airwaves and how that translates into the furthering of our national discussions, but obviously also how it can, how it can, forgive me, Dr.
11:31: Jacobs, are you an MD? A PhD.
11:34: A PhD.
11:35: Yes, sir.
11:36: In psychology? No, sir.
11:37: Theology? No.
11:39: Social work? I have a PhD in English literature.
11:42: I'm asking because on your show, people call in for advice and you go by the name Dr.
11:46: Jacobs on your show and I didn't know if maybe your listeners were confused by that and assumed you had advanced training in psychology, theology, or healthcare.
11:56: I don't believe they are confused.
11:57: No, sir.
11:58: Good.
11:59: I like your show.
12:01: I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
12:06: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr.
12:09: President.
12:09: The Bible does.
12:10: Yes, it does.
12:11: Leviticus.
12:12: 1822.
12:12: Chapter and verse.
12:13: I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here.
12:16: I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21-7.
12:21: She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always stood at the table when it was her turn.
12:26: What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath.
12:37: Exodus 35-2 clearly says he should be put to death.
12:41: Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town.
12:49: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean.
12:52: Leviticus 11-7.
12:54: If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing.
13:27: And the Christian is dejected and disappointed and unable to give an answer for anything because the person has established dominance through a use of biblical law.
13:43: Now do you see why such a clip made the rounds when it was first aired, was talked about on several different Christian shows, was bantered about as to how do you answer this question? It became so famous that it became known as the West Wing question because it was such a seemingly difficult thing for a Christian who is represented by the woman in the show and it highlights an issue regarding Christian ethics.
14:22: And as I said, I've used this video for quite some time because a person, the lady in this video, puts forward a particular ethic regarding something they believe the Bible teaches and the other person responds by essentially accusing them of cherry picking.
14:42: Now that's not the word that was used in the video, but that is the accusation that Christians only pick out certain passages and other passages they do not care about or they don't use or they don't apply to themselves.
15:02: And as you can tell, every one of the verses that the president in the show, played by Martin Sheen, as you can tell, the passages that he mentioned were all Old Testament passages.
15:20: So how should Christians understand the old covenant law and are we hypocrites when we claim that there are things that are sinful and we base that on the scripture, but yet we do not believe other things that are forbidden in scripture are sinful.
15:42: And that is the basis of tonight's class.
15:48: It's understanding that issue.
15:52: So the first thing we're going to do is I want to introduce you to four perspectives, four perspectives on the Old Testament law for Christians.
16:11: And when I say this, I'm not, this is not the only perspectives on the Old Testament.
16:15: I'm not including how the Jews see the Old Testament.
16:18: I'm not including Muslims in this.
16:21: I'm including people who claim to be Christians in this group, even though you may argue that some of these may not be Christian.
16:30: I'm saying these people all claim fidelity to Christ and the new covenant and all of them have differing views on how to understand, interpret and apply the old covenant.
16:45: The first group is called the Torah observant, the Torah observant group.
17:03: And I'll put each one down as we go.
17:05: I want you to be able to put notes for each of these.
17:09: The Torah observant group is any group which advocates the keeping of all or most of the Old Testament laws as being mandatory for Christians.
17:28: Some would say that while salvation is all of grace, a person who is truly saved would want to obey the law of God as explained in the Old Testament.
17:42: And therefore, a sign of salvation is submission to the Old Testament law.
17:48: And if a person is not submitted to the Old Testament law, they are at best out of the will of God and at worst lost.
17:58: That's the understanding of this group.
18:02: Often the most specific rules which are demanded are the dietary restrictions.
18:08: I go back to that story of the man from Set Free.
18:11: I remember very specifically saying something to the fact that he did not keep the laws as they were written anyway.
18:19: We were just sort of debating back and forth.
18:21: I said, I don't believe that you keep the laws.
18:23: And he goes, sure, I do.
18:25: I don't eat this and I don't eat that.
18:27: And he picked out the ones that to him were the most obvious.
18:32: And the most obvious ones were the dietary restrictions and the keeping of the Sabbath.
18:39: That was another thing that he was demanding.
18:41: And that's normally what you will see in these groups is that there will be a keeping of not just the Sabbath, but a keeping of a Saturday Sabbath.
18:52: So what groups fall under this? That's a question anybody can answer.
19:01: Seventh-day Adventists, the SDA.
19:07: We had a lady a few years ago, very sweet woman.
19:12: She and I had a very good relationship here at the church.
19:14: She and her husband were members here for a long time.
19:19: And she began to take issue with some things that I was saying, take issue with some of what was being taught in Sunday school.
19:27: And I could tell that she was being influenced by some Torah observant group.
19:33: And I come to find out it was a Seventh-day Adventist group.
19:37: And she was convinced that because Jesus kept the Sabbath on Saturday, that we were wrong for worshiping on Sunday.
19:47: And that was one of her most insistent arguments was that we were wrong because we worshiped on Sunday.
19:56: And she would make that a big deal.
19:58: And finally, that became such an issue for her that she left this church and went to the Seventh-day Adventist church.
20:06: So I've experienced this one firsthand.
20:11: What is another group that would fall under this category? Anyone else? Well, as I said, I'm not counting Jewish, but I would say Messianic Judaism.
20:25: So Messianic Judaism often will focus on keeping the laws, particularly the Sabbath laws.
20:31: They'll call themselves Torah observant.
20:33: But Orthodox Jews would be unchristian.
20:36: But Messianic Jews would say they are Christian.
20:38: They would at least claim to be.
20:40: Yeah, so Messianic Judaism.
20:50: And a few years ago, you guys know who Michael Brown is? Yes.
20:55: Michael Brown is a...
20:57: Yeah, yeah.
20:59: A radio guy.
20:59: Yeah, he's on the radio.
21:00: What's the name of the show? Line of Fire.
21:01: Line of Fire Radio.
21:03: He wrote one of the best books on homosexuality in America.
21:07: It's called A Queer Thing Happened in America.
21:08: It's a really good book.
21:10: And it just talks about the history of how the world has changed and things like that.
21:15: But I have some issues with him.
21:16: He's very, very, very charismatic.
21:17: And so we disagree on some things.
21:19: But overall, good dude in general.
21:24: But he was here with Dr.
21:28: James White doing a debate.
21:30: And not with James White.
21:32: They were doing a two-on-two debate.
21:33: Him and James White debated two homosexual pastors.
21:38: Pastors.
21:38: Let me make sure to go back and clarify.
21:40: And they debated on the subject of homosexuality and Christianity.
21:44: And we had a night before where we got a chance to go and ask questions to James White and to Michael Brown.
21:53: It was at Gordon-Conwell Seminary, which is in Jacksonville.
21:55: So we went and sat in and got to ask questions.
21:59: And a bunch of Messianic Jews were there.
22:02: Because Michael Brown is Jewish by birth and has an extensive background in Hebrew.
22:08: And his Old Testament knowledge is just far and away really amazing.
22:13: And so a lot of Messianic Jewish people came to ask him questions.
22:17: And you could tell when they came in because many of them were wearing traditional Jewish prayer shawls.
22:25: And so you could tell they stood out from the rank-and-file believers in the room.
22:33: So Seventh-day Adventists would certainly fall under the Torah observant.
22:38: Messianic Jewish people, Messianic Jews, would fall under this in general.
22:44: Not always, but in general, it's found among them.
22:48: And there is another group.
22:50: Anybody know what the other group might be? It's a group called Hebrew Roots.
22:56: OK.
22:58: No, and I'll explain why.
23:05: Good question, though, David.
23:07: Hebrew Roots is a little bit more difficult to explain.
23:14: Because the Hebrew Roots movement is a movement which is found in various denominations.
23:20: And the idea is that it's trying to find the Old Testament traditional background for the New Testament.
23:29: And often what happens is they end up going back into the Old Testament law and pulling in the Old Testament law.
23:35: And like, for instance, I know a lady right now who told me that her relatives are getting into that, that they're starting to be very restrictive with their diet.
23:45: And they're starting to worship on the Sabbath and these things.
23:49: And Hebrew Roots is like, it's not so much like a, like I said, it's not a denomination like Seventh-day Adventists.
23:54: It's more like a movement that moves within churches.
23:59: And not that it should be compared in this way, but Calvinism and Hebrew Roots would be similar in the sense that Calvinism is found in all different kinds of churches.
24:06: You can find Calvinist Baptists.
24:08: You can find Calvinist Methodists.
24:10: Do you know that? George Whitefield was a Calvinist Methodist, right? So you can find Calvinism in various churches.
24:16: You can find Hebrew Roots in various churches because it's more of a teaching that makes its way in.
24:24: But Hebrew Israelites, sometimes referred to as Black Hebrew Israelites, are a group that believe that they are the true descendants of Israel.
24:34: And typically Black people who believe that they're by descendants are the true Israel.
24:44: They have been persecuted and they believe that they are the true Israel that God is working through right now.
24:52: So that's different than Hebrew Roots.
24:54: Now, how they understand Old Testament law, I'm not sure.
24:57: So I can't put them up here because I'm not sure.
25:01: I'd have to look that up.
25:02: They aren't even sure about it.
25:03: Yeah, yeah.
25:04: There's a lot of confusion in the Hebrew Israelite movement.
25:07: But no, it's not the same as Hebrew Roots.
25:08: Hebrew Roots, like I said, is like a teaching that makes its way into churches.
25:12: And you'll know people when you talk to them.
25:15: I remember one time I was at Sandmar, which is a t-shirt distribution company, back when I had my t-shirt company.
25:21: And I went in and I sat down and was waiting on the t-shirts to be distributed, my t-shirts to come out.
25:27: And I sat next to a guy and we just started talking about the Bible, started talking about the gospel.
25:31: And he immediately told me that he was convinced that Christians should be keeping the Old Testament dietary laws.
25:38: Christians should be circumcised.
25:40: Christians should keep the Sabbath and these things.
25:43: And I asked him, I said, would you consider yourself Hebrew Roots? And he, yeah.
25:49: So, like I said, it's a movement to try to push back the idea of holding to these Old Testament laws.
25:59: And when I was teaching on Colossians 2, and if you want to hear my sermon on this, you can go to Sermon Audio, Colossians 2, 16 and 17, I listened to some sermons from these guys because I wanted to hear how they understand what I think is the clearest passage in the New Testament telling us that we don't do those things.
26:21: And they totally turn that text on its head.
26:25: They totally say that Paul is actually telling us to do those things rather than not to do those things.
26:32: And so they're convinced that the Christian, to be right in their ethic, that their ethic, remember that's what this class is about, their ethic is based in keeping the Old Testament law in its fullness, in its fullness.
26:51: All right.
26:51: The next group that I want to discuss is what we would call the tripartite distinction, the tripartite distinction.
27:07: And I'll write it up here for you to be able to know how it's spelled properly.
27:20: Now, tripartite means a three-part distinction.
27:28: The tripartite distinction separates the Old Covenant law into three parts, and those three parts are moral, civil, and ceremonial.
28:00: Moral, civil, and ceremonial.
28:04: Now, I do encourage you to take notes, because remember I'm talking about pop quizzes and stuff.
28:11: These things will definitely be on the quiz, at least part of them.
28:14: So keep that in mind.
28:16: So when we talk about the tripartite distinction, this separates the Old Covenant law into a threefold division, and the division goes like this.
28:28: The civil laws were for national Israel.
28:35: So I said national laws.
28:41: I should say national Israel.
28:43: That the civil laws specifically are for national Israel, for the government of the state.
28:55: And we say state.
28:56: I don't mean state is like the state of Israel today, but the nation of Israel.
29:00: The government of the nation was governed by civil law.
29:03: So for instance, there are laws in the Old Testament that say if your ox tramples another person's crops, couldn't get the word out, if your ox tramples their crops, then you owe them this much in return.
29:18: Those would be an example of what this would see as civil law, and all of the laws are based on these civil commandments.
29:28: The ceremonial laws are laws that specifically related to priestly duties in the tabernacle or the temple.
29:36: So we could say priestly duties.
29:46: Yes? Would the feasts and festivals fall under that? Yeah, there'd still be ceremonial laws.
29:50: I guess it's not only priestly duties, but specifically those things that relate to ceremonies and feasts.
29:56: Yes, absolutely.
29:59: And the third is the moral laws, and this particular belief system, this tripartite distinction, believes that the moral law is to be found in the Ten Commandments specifically.
30:17: So the Ten Commandments.
30:26: Now, who would adhere to the tripartite distinction? You're probably right if you're nervous.
30:48: Yeah, but who holds to a tripartite? You're right, we're going to talk about that in a minute.
30:51: But who holds to? Actually, I don't, but I'll explain why in a minute.
30:55: But typically reformed people do.
30:58: Typically reformed people do.
31:00: But so do Roman Catholics.
31:02: So Catholics and reforms, reformed church, both hold to a tripartite distinction.
31:08: So that means you're putting Catholic into Christian? Don't press me too hard on this, but for tonight, I'm simply saying those who would claim to be Christians.
31:24: Catholics would certainly claim to be Christian.
31:26: Now, whether we can debate their theology, same way a Seventh-day Adventist claims to be Christian, but we could debate their theology, right? But next time you meet one, ask them if they're a Christian and watch them tilt their head to the side and say, go ahead.
31:40: Well, I've had interactions where they argue, certainly we're Christian, so it depends, right? But the tripartite distinction is expressed, if you want to write this down, in Westminster Confession.
31:57: The Westminster Confession, Section 3-5, clearly expresses this as the position of the Westminster and it's in the London Baptist Confession as well.
32:11: So the tripartite distinction is believed by most reformed people who hold to a confessionally reformed position.
32:23: As I said, I don't hold to this, and I'll explain why in a moment.
32:28: But I think that it's helpful, but I don't think that it's altogether perfect.
32:37: And here's my—I'll go ahead and give you my thoughts on it.
32:41: As we're going to see when we begin to talk about the moral law, the Ten Commandments include the Sabbath, and therefore you have to deal with the issue of the Sabbath and how you understand the Sabbath.
32:50: So right away you're dealing with an issue of, is Sabbath keeping moral, and how do you address that? But also, how do you distinguish ceremonial and civil law when the commands themselves become moral obligations when they're commanded by God? How do you say it's not a moral law if God commands it to be done? And if you don't do it, you're under God's curse.
33:16: That's where the issue lies.
33:18: But like I said, we're going to talk more about that.
33:21: That's why I think this is oversimplification.
33:27: That's my position, is that the tri-part is too easy.
33:31: It doesn't deal with the more difficult parts.
33:35: But in general, this is the view held both by Rome and the Reformers, that the law is to be understood with three parts.
33:43: That the law is moral, that's the one that we keep.
33:48: And the civil law went away with Israel, because Israel is no longer what it was after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and everything.
34:03: The Old Covenant is done away with, in the sense of the Old Testament Israel is done away with.
34:09: And the Old Testament ceremonies are fulfilled in Christ, right? So these two no longer have application.
34:17: So this does give an easy answer to the West Wing question.
34:25: Well, I like easy when it's right.
34:29: I don't like easy when it's oversimplifies.
34:33: But for a simple answer to the West Wing question, if the woman said, well, you know, homosexuality is a sin, which she did, it's abomination.
34:45: First of all, I would not use Leviticus 18.22.
34:48: If I was describing homosexuality as a sin, I would use a New Covenant passage, which is found in, well, 1 Corinthians 6, Romans 1, several other passages which relate to marriage, being between one man and one woman, all those things.
35:02: Leviticus 18 is not the passage I would go to.
35:06: However, I do think it is eternal moral law that homosexuality is wrong.
35:10: So I think it would fall under here.
35:12: However, the other laws he described in the video, such as the law of not touching the skin of a pig, falls clearly under ceremonial law.
35:21: That's the law of not planting crops side by side, certainly falls under the civil law of Israel.
35:28: And so that is where the answer could be given.
35:32: But of course, the film is not intended to give an answer.
35:36: The film is intended to make the Christian look foolish, right? So we understand what the film is about.
35:43: You were going to say? I'm sorry.
35:45: Well, yeah, the slavery question.
35:51: Could, could very well be.
35:52: Yep, yep, absolutely.
35:53: So we have Torah observant is one, and I don't, again, I'm only giving you four today.
35:59: I'm not saying these are the only four.
36:00: These are the four I want you to consider as we study ethics, okay? The third one is called theonomy, theonomy.
36:20: The word theonomy comes from two words, the word theos, which means God, and the word namos, which means law.
36:36: And therefore, the word theonomy refers to God's law.
36:43: Now, I want to, I want to clearly make some, I want to make something clear.
36:47: The tripartite distinction is still understood in theonomy.
36:52: So these are not absolute, absolutely different.
36:55: Where they differ is typically those who hold to a tripartite distinction do not see a place for the civil law of Israel in national law today.
37:06: Theonomy believes that all national law should be based on God's civil law given to Israel.
37:12: So the idea of theonomy is the idea that God's law should be the standard for all men's laws, right? And so that is where theonomy comes from.
37:23: And there's different versions of this.
37:26: For instance, there's something called, there's something called, oh goodness, I just dropped my word.
37:35: Thank you, AJ.
37:37: General equity theonomy.
37:40: General equity theonomy, I'll write that down, essentially says that while the laws given to Israel are specific to Israel, they set a standard which then provides a general equity by which we create other laws for other nations.
38:07: So for instance, America is not governed the same way Israel was.
38:12: America has supposedly democratically elected officials.
38:18: And Israel had a monarchy.
38:21: So the governmental structure is different.
38:23: However, there can be general principles applied from the laws of Israel to a government like the United States.
38:31: And they would call that general equity theonomy.
38:34: Now that is a more broad use of the word theonomy and one that I really wouldn't take a big issue with.
38:40: And I mean, there's some things I would disagree with.
38:42: But basically, I would say, yeah, OK, God says it's wrong to murder.
38:46: We should say it's wrong to murder.
38:48: And if that's what we're saying, fine.
38:51: And if God says a murderer should be punished by capital punishment, then make it happen, Captain.
39:02: That's that, you know.
39:04: By the way, we are going to talk about the subject of capital punishment in that one you have, capital punishment.
39:13: Bert's going to be teaching in a couple of weeks.
39:16: And we talk about capital punishment.
39:17: We're going to talk about God's perspective in the sense of what does the Old Testament say? What does the New Testament say? How do we apply our ethic to something like capital punishment, right? But ultimately, theonomy has a general equity view.
39:32: But then there is more of a strict theonomy, a nationalistic form of theonomy.
39:39: And that is a little bit more, a little more, I don't want to say harsh because I don't think that's even the right word.
39:51: It's a little more aggressive.
39:53: So for instance, things like punishing people for working on the Sabbath and things like that.
39:57: So those would be, that would be a further, more difficult view.
40:02: Now, some proponents of this would be men like R.J.
40:06: Rushdooney, whose book is actually sitting on my shelf if anyone wants to take a look at it, his book Christians and Biblical Law.
40:14: R.J.
40:15: Rushdooney would be a more aggressive form of theonomy.
40:18: Greg Bonson was a theonomist.
40:22: And a more modern speaker would be someone like Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church.
40:28: He would be a theonomist, probably more in line with the general equity view.
40:32: And so if you're interested in hearing what they have to say, feel free to look them up and learn a little bit more from the horse's mouth.
40:39: You know, especially Jeff Durbin has a lot that he says about this subject and you can look him up.
40:44: Also, Doug Wilson is a pastor in Moscow, Idaho, not Moscow, Russia, but Moscow, Idaho.
40:52: And he is a theonomist.
40:55: And Doug, Douglas Wilson.
40:59: And I will be debating Douglas Wilson in a couple of weeks on the subject of post-millennialism versus amillennialism.
41:08: It is somewhat of a humorous debate.
41:11: It's not intended to be too terribly funny.
41:13: I mean, too terribly serious because the positions of amillennialism and post-millennialism are so very close anyway.
41:20: There's only a few distinct differences and we're going to really argue about the small differences between us.
41:26: But Doug Wilson would hold to a view of theonomy.
41:31: And in fact, some have argued that the town that he lives in, which is Moscow, Idaho, that they're that they're trying to produce a theonomic society there because they're sort of the church is sort of overtaking this little small town.
41:45: There was a video crew went out there and filmed and did an interview, a news interview and asking about this church that was making such big waves in such a small town out in Idaho.
41:57: And you can look that up.
41:58: It was an interesting video because he was talking about theonomy in the video.
42:02: I wish I had brought it.
42:03: He was talking about theonomy.
42:04: And he said he said something about homosexual marriage.
42:12: And the lady said, well, homosexual marriage is the Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual marriage is is is right.
42:21: This is the lady interviewing him.
42:24: And he said, yeah, well, they once said Roe versus Wade was right, too.
42:29: And he just he just kind of gave her a look like those can be overturned because Roe versus Wade was overturned.
42:36: So anyhow, so those are examples.
42:38: And again, they would still understand a tripartite division.
42:42: So this would be a subset of two.
42:45: Theonomy is more of a subset of two.
42:51: Finally, we're going to look at number four, which is called by different names.
42:57: I'm going to call it New Covenant priority, New Covenant priority.
43:09: Now, some people and I myself included would also call this New Covenant theology.
43:15: Sometimes maybe use the term progressive covenantalism, but that's a little different.
43:20: That's based on the works of Wellman Gentry in the book Kingdom through Covenant.
43:25: So I I don't want to I don't want to completely combine the two.
43:29: But basically, New Covenant theology or New Covenant priority would say that the old covenant in its fullness has been replaced by the new covenant.
43:44: And therefore, the laws of the old covenant in their fullness are no longer binding on the Christian.
43:52: The Christian is bound to a new law, the law of Christ, also referred to as the law of liberty or the law of love.
44:01: Those three phrases are all used in the New Covenant.
44:03: And I will write each one down, the law of Christ or the law of liberty or the law of love.
44:17: All three of those phrases, again, are used in the New Covenant.
44:23: This would argue that the tripartite distinction is not biblical and is arbitrary.
44:30: That's my position.
44:31: I believe the tripartite distinction ultimately becomes an arbitrary issue where people get to decide for themselves what is moral and what is civil and what is ceremonial, because the Bible never makes that distinction.
44:43: There's no chart in the Old Testament that says this be moral, this be civil, this be ceremonial.
44:54: This position does not deny that there are laws in the Old Covenant that we are to obey, but rather that the New Covenant scriptures take priority over the Old Covenant.
45:07: And the best way to describe this, as I have over the years come to be able to understand it and describe it, is if you imagine we have the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and the Old Covenant specifically relates to the covenant of Moses, and the New Covenant specifically relates to the covenant of Christ, that there are laws which transcend all covenants.
45:45: So we would call these transcendental laws.
45:57: Spell that a little wrong, but it's transcendental laws.
46:00: So, for instance, when Cain killed Abel, was that before Moses? Was that before the Ten Commandments? Was it wrong? Was it wrong? Yes.
46:20: Yes.
46:21: Was it wrong for Cain to kill Abel? Daisy, you look like you're confused.
46:26: It was wrong, right? Okay, thank you.
46:27: Yeah, we agree.
46:29: Cain was wrong for killing Abel, right? But there was no written law against which he sinned, right? Now, was it wrong when Joseph's brother sold him into slavery? Yeah, I mean it was wrong for them to abuse him.
46:50: It was wrong for them to sell him, consider killing him, but then decided to take the cash instead of having him killed.
46:56: That was wrong.
46:59: The point of this little illustration is that there are laws which transcend covenantal boundaries.
47:09: Prior to the covenant with Moses, murder was still wrong.
47:13: Kidnapping was still wrong.
47:14: Rape was still wrong.
47:15: It was all wrong even before the law said it was wrong.
47:19: So those laws transcend covenantal law.
47:23: Here's an interesting exercise.
47:26: Find anyone who keeps the Sabbath before Exodus 16.
47:31: You won't.
47:32: You won't find anyone who keeps the Sabbath before Exodus 16.
47:37: Yes.
47:44: Well, I believe the conscience bears witness to them.
47:46: This is what Paul says in Romans 2.
47:48: When he says when the Gentile does what the law requires, even though he doesn't have the law, he shows that he's a law unto himself and that the work of the law is written on his heart.
47:58: I believe it's the transcendental law that's being referred to there.
48:01: That work is written on his heart.
48:06: Yeah.
48:07: So lying would be an example.
48:11: Now, here's where I think I get my tripartite brothers and I can come together.
48:20: If you simply take this model and change the word transcendental to moral, then I have the same thing as here, except one, and it's the Sabbath.
48:36: Honestly, if you took my model and applied it to this, the only one that doesn't fit is the Sabbath, because I still believe that lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, not obeying your parents is wrong, right? All those things that's in the Ten Commandments, I do believe are part of the transcendental law.
48:58: So I'm not too far.
48:59: I'm not so far away from this that I get kicked out of the kingdom.
49:04: But where the issue comes is how we apply the Sabbath.
49:07: And if you have two hours to kill, I do invite you to go listen to my debate on the Sabbath that I did with Rob Hamm.
49:14: I did a debate with a Presbyterian minister.
49:16: It was here at the church, and we debated why I believe the Sabbath is completely fulfilled in Christ and therefore is no longer an ethical demand on Christians to keep a certain day.
49:27: I do believe the Lord's Day is to be honored.
49:30: We worship on the Lord's Day, but I don't believe that's the same as the Sabbath, and I explained that in the debate.
49:35: But the point of the matter is, New Covenant theology, or whatever you want to call it, simply recognizes that there are laws that transcend all the covenants.
49:46: But there are specific laws in the Mosaic covenant that do not apply to the New Covenant.
49:51: In the same way that if a church had a constitution, let's say a church had a constitution from 2000 to 2020, and the church operated underneath that constitution.
50:04: And in 2020, they had a new session of elders that came into power.
50:09: And the new session of elders decided they were going to write a new constitution.
50:15: What happens to the old constitution when the new constitution comes into play? It's superseded.
50:21: It's superseded, and the old covenant, or I'm sorry, the old constitution becomes obsolete.
50:29: But there may be things in the old covenant that are also in the new one.
50:33: There may be things in the old constitution, because they're right whether they're in the old or whether they're in the new, because they transcend that time break.
50:41: They transcend that distinction.
50:46: And so, when I think of the old covenant, I think of Hebrews chapter 8, verse 13, where the apostle Paul says, when the new covenant came, it made the old covenant obsolete.
51:00: The whole old covenant, not just these two parts, but the whole thing has now been superseded by the new covenant.
51:09: And we live on a very simple command.
51:14: Christ said, love God first, love others, right? These are the, upon this rests what? The whole law.
51:23: Now, if we need to know what that looks like, we may visit the Old Testament and see a picture of what that looks like.
51:29: And there are lessons to be learned.
51:31: The Bible says we have lessons that we can learn, and these things are written for our instruction.
51:35: So I'm not saying we throw out the Old Testament.
51:38: I'm saying our hermeneutic basis for ethics is a new covenant hermeneutic basis for our ethic.
51:46: That's my position.
51:50: And you say, well, what about, wait a minute now.
51:52: The new covenant doesn't forbid certain things.
51:55: You're going to see throughout this class that the new covenant actually does address much more than you may realize.
52:00: Often people run to the old covenant passages without realizing the new covenant deals with it just as well, sometimes better, such as the issue of homosexuality.
52:07: People want to run to Leviticus 18.22.
52:10: First Corinthians chapter six is a much better passage because it clearly distinguishes between the male, the effeminate male and the masculine male in the homosexual relationship.
52:21: It uses the terms malakoi and arsenikoites, which refers to the active and passive recipient in a homosexual relationship.
52:31: And it says that both are wrong.
52:34: Now, that's a pretty robust understanding of homosexuality.
52:39: And the New Testament deals with lesbianism in Romans chapter one, when it says a woman leaves the natural use of the woman and burns in lust for other women, which is unique to deal with lesbians.
52:52: Lesbianism as an issue by itself.
52:55: So we shouldn't think just because we we prioritize the New Testament that somehow we're limiting ourselves.
53:02: The New Testament really does give us a wonderful ethic based upon primarily the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles.
53:10: Yes, what I was going to say in Matthew five, Jesus addressed sexual sin in the looking with lust.
53:20: Yep.
53:21: So yeah, exactly.
53:22: The heart of the law, what we would say the spirit of the law, the transcendent law, which is lust, right? Exactly.
53:27: Here's I didn't say this on this on this last one.
53:30: Who would hold to that fourth view? A couple of names I do want to throw at you.
53:34: One is named Fred Zaspel.
53:36: He's a pastor and writer.
53:38: He wrote a book called New Covenant Theology.
53:39: I recommend it to anyone who might want to read it.
53:41: He's actually a person I know through internet connections.
53:44: I've had conversations with him.
53:46: Very nice man.
53:46: Another one by the name of Tom Schreiner.
53:49: He wrote the book, 40 Questions About Biblical Law, and he gives a very, very good explanation of what I've been saying.
53:55: Much more intelligent and articulate than articulate than I am, as you can tell.
54:01: And if you want to know more about this position that I've been espousing, New Covenant priority, you can look at it.
54:07: Look at that book, 40 Questions About Biblical Law, and you'll learn a lot.
54:11: When I did my preparation for my debate on the Sabbath, I used Tom Schreiner's material quite a bit.
54:17: He's a brilliant man.
54:19: Brilliant man.
54:21: So, how you interpret the law and how you distinguish the Old and New Testaments will have a tremendous effect on your ethic.
54:30: Because again, going back to this list, if you talk to a Torah observant person about Christian ethics, are they not going to give you a different answer than a New Covenant person? Absolutely.
54:39: Particularly on issues of things like, is it ethical to eat a shrimp? Now, you may have issues with shrimp, but is it ethical? That's the question.
54:50: Meaning, is there an ethic, a biblical ethic that would say it's wrong? On the Old Covenant, the answer is yes.
54:58: But does that translate to the New Covenant? I would say no.
55:03: But that's the, right, those are the, that's how I'm saying these, that's why I use these four.
55:09: And where this one, theonomy is going to come into place, is things like how you apply things like capital punishment.
55:16: Should homosexuality receive capital punishment? Don't answer.
55:20: I'm not asking for you to answer.
55:21: I'm simply saying, that is, what does the Old Covenant say? Old Covenant says an unruly child can be subject to capital punishment.
55:30: And all the parents said, wait a minute, where's that? But I mean, you understand how these would affect our ethic.
55:38: It's how we understand the application of the Old Covenant, particularly in light of the video we watched, all this is going to affect.
55:47: But also, once you know from this class, I'm coming from the perspective that there are transcendental laws, moral, if you want to call it that, moral laws that transcend all the covenants, and therefore our base ethic are going to be based on those.
56:02: So here's an example, another video.
56:05: Here's an example of a young lady who I think is a good example of what not to do.
56:52: Okay.
56:58: It seems like you felt judged or shamed.
57:01: Yes, and it's like, regardless of anything that I've done, that people might think, oh, well, that deserves a scarlet letter.
57:14: That's not how it works.
57:16: Like, I can do whatever I send daily, and Jesus still loves me.
57:21: It's all washed, and do not, and if the Lord doesn't judge me, and it's all forgiven, then no other man, woman, animal, anything, I don't know, anything can judge me.
57:35: Nobody's judging Annabee.
57:36: Nobody's going to judge me, and I won't stand for it.
57:38: I'm going to speak my mind about it.
57:40: The Lord makes sex to be amazing, and guess what? A man does not control anything that I do.
57:47: It's really my power play moment.
57:49: Okay.
57:50: Like, not playing anymore.
57:53: Anything you wish you'd said, or did you get it all out? I think I got it all out.
57:58: I made it pretty crystal clear.
58:00: Crystal clear? You would think, but we'll see.
58:02: You stood up for yourself.
58:03: Honestly, my faith has grown so much, and I realized, like, what relationship with the Lord is really about.
58:09: I don't have to carry that.
58:11: To ever have anybody make me feel that way, it's a little messed up, and I'm not going to stand for that.
58:21: All right.
58:24: So what did we just watch? This was one of those shows about, what do they call it? Bachelorette-style show, where this young lady had several men who were courting her over the process of this show, and one of the young men asked her if she was having sex with the other men on the show, and she said yes, and how dare he question her? And he says, well, I'm a Christian, and I believe that Christians aren't supposed to have premarital sex, and she freaked out, as we saw, and got angry.
58:59: So you say, well, why would you show us that? Well, I'm showing you that.
59:04: Huh? Well, yeah.
59:08: Well, you're jumping right a little bit ahead of me, but my point is, when we begin to talk about ethics, when we begin to talk about law, we run into those who would use grace as an excuse for breaking all of God's laws.
59:26: Grace as an excuse for sin.
59:28: Somebody already mentioned Romans chapter 6.
59:31: What does it say? What shall we say? Shall we continue to sin so that grace can abound? And the answer is what? Yeah, certainly not.
59:41: God forbid.
59:42: Heavens know, right? The idea is absolutely not.
59:46: But the question then becomes, we take a step back.
59:49: OK, if grace is not a license for sin, what do we do about the fact that we do struggle with our sin? So that becomes another issue entirely, right? We have to deal with the fact.
01:00:11: One thing that she's right about, as wrong as she is, and she's wrong in like a million miles, but she's right.
01:00:17: We do sin.
01:00:19: And we do sin daily.
01:00:20: We fail daily.
01:00:21: The Bible says for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
01:00:26: And so we know that's a reality.
01:00:28: But when someone uses grace as a license, that is a clear violation of the New Testament ethic.
01:00:38: It's one thing to say I battle sin.
01:00:41: It's one thing to say I repent daily of the sins and the areas where I fail.
01:00:47: But it is another thing altogether to run headlong into sin and say God doesn't care about my sin.
01:00:57: That is absolutely averse to the Christian ethic.
01:01:00: In fact, I'll read to you another passage.
01:01:03: You may want to write this down.
01:01:05: First John chapter three, verses four to six.
01:01:10: Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness.
01:01:14: Sin is lawlessness.
01:01:16: You know that he appeared in order to take away sins.
01:01:19: And in him there is no sin.
01:01:21: No one who abides in him keeps on sinning.
01:01:23: No one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
01:01:27: And the idea here is the idea of a persistent pattern of unbroken, unrepented sin.
01:01:36: This often leads in churches to something called church discipline.
01:01:41: Because when someone is in the church and they're living in a consistent, persistent pattern of unbroken sin, and they're called to repentance and they refuse because they either say it's not a sin.
01:01:53: That's often what happens.
01:01:55: They'll say, I'm not sinning, even though it's clearly sin.
01:01:58: Or they say something like, well, you sin too.
01:02:05: And they mirror or project their sin onto someone else leads to an issue.
01:02:13: John is clearly talking in 1 John chapter 3 about someone who is in a state of unrepentant sin.
01:02:22: Absolutely and absolutely unwilling to repent.
01:02:29: And this is an issue of ethics because not only do we have to address what sin is as part of our understanding of ethics, but we have to address what it means to live in it, what it means to live persistently in it.
01:02:46: And I've had that question.
01:02:47: I've had people ask me, well, Pastor, do you sin? I say, yes.
01:02:51: Well, why are you under discipline? And the answer is very simple, even though it can be somewhat complicated for people to understand.
01:02:59: Sometimes I say the difference really is the difference of persistent, unbroken pattern of sin.
01:03:06: And it comes down to an issue of a person who is living in sin versus someone who is battling sin.
01:03:12: If there were a man in my church who were battling a sin, we would come along and battle with him, pray with him, encourage him, seek to help him in whatever area he was struggling.
01:03:24: But if that same man said, I'm no longer caring about battling, I'm going headlong into this sin and I'm engaging in and I have no desire to repent and no desire to be challenged or counseled or anything else, that's different.
01:03:41: And the picture I often use is the picture of the fish in the stream.
01:03:46: If you imagine a stream with dead fish and one of the fish comes alive and he begins to swim upstream, well, when he's alive and he's swimming upstream, now he's swimming against the current and he's getting slapped in the face by the other dead fish as he's trying to swim upstream.
01:04:04: And sometimes he gets tired and struggles as he swims upstream, but he's still alive and he's swimming upstream.
01:04:09: So the question is, are you dead and going downstream? Are you alive and swimming upstream? There really is the difference.
01:04:16: And from an ethical perspective, from a perspective of discipline, that's where it would be.
01:04:22: And the times where our church has had to engage in times of public discipline, it has always been after a long period of loving and consistent counsel.
01:04:35: Never has it been, oh, you failed.
01:04:37: You're out of there.
01:04:39: You know what I mean? It's always after a person has demonstrated.
01:04:42: I knew a church one time.
01:04:43: It didn't happen here, but a buddy of mine who's a pastor, they were two years with a man who was in sin and they just loved him and loved him and ministered to him and counseled him.
01:04:54: And they were meeting with him weekly for two years.
01:04:57: And finally, it just came.
01:04:58: And he would meet with me and talk to me and have me ask me questions and get my input.
01:05:03: And I'd give my input about it.
01:05:05: And finally, it just came to the point where this man has no desire to change.
01:05:10: He said, why is he coming to counseling? He was coming to counseling for other reasons I can't really get into right now.
01:05:15: He was coming to counseling not for change, but he was ultimately trying to change the mind of the elders, I think, that what he was doing wasn't sin.
01:05:24: Yes, quick question.
01:05:26: Thank you.
01:05:26: Answer going stop and living in it progressing.
01:05:34: Is that what you meant by swimming upstream and upstream and floating down? This is somewhat difficult.
01:05:39: And that's why I said counseling is needed because you may have a man who's struggling with well, maybe the best example would be someone who says, OK, my girlfriend and I are struggling with sexual sin.
01:05:58: We're not married.
01:05:59: OK, well, how can we deal with this? Well, we can deal with it, one, by why aren't you married? Why don't you want to be married? What's the problem? Right? What's keeping you from being married? But the next question would be, OK, are you willing to stop? Are you willing to repent of this? Or are you going to keep doing it? Are you going to keep engaging? Are you going to keep putting yourself in a situation where this is going to keep happening? That would be one.
01:06:19: That'd be first.
01:06:20: Like, are you going to keep? Do you have a desire to repent? If you do, then we can help you.
01:06:24: But if you don't, then not much we can do.
01:06:26: But the next step would be, let's say they bought an apartment together.
01:06:30: Well, then you know the answer.
01:06:32: You know the answer.
01:06:33: At that point, they've decided to move full into it.
01:06:37: And that's why good, solid elders who love the people enough to counsel them, talk with them, is necessary in times like that.
01:06:45: Yeah, it's not always an easy one-step thing.
01:06:48: Like I said, it takes time to investigate.
01:06:52: You know, the Bible says a fool is a man who gives an answer without looking into it.
01:06:55: So that's why the elders have to look into it, know what's going on, and those things.
01:06:59: It's never easy.
01:07:00: Discipline is never easy.
01:07:02: And always is preceded by investigation, counsel, prayer, seeking the Lord, and seeking the truth.
01:07:10: Because there's always two sides of the story, too.
01:07:12: Because you may have two people that are arguing with one another, and both are in sin.
01:07:16: And you've got to deal with both sides.
01:07:18: It's not always sexual.
01:07:19: I mean, it can be alcohol.
01:07:20: It could be drugs.
01:07:21: It could be pornography.
01:07:22: It could be all kinds of things that would lead to discipline.
01:07:26: But the question is, are they seeking help? Somebody with pornography, are they willing to give up the internet? Are they willing to give up, get something like Covenant Eyes on their computer, which is a software that would keep them from everything they look at is monitored, something like that.
01:07:42: Are they willing to get help or not? That's a big answer to whether a man is struggling or whether a man's given over to sin.
01:07:50: Yeah.
01:07:50: All right.
01:07:51: Let's take just a couple minute break.
01:07:53: I just need to sit down for a minute.
01:07:54: And we'll come back.
01:07:55: And the last thing we're going to talk about is subjectivism in Romans 14.
01:07:59: So let's just take three or four minutes.
01:08:01: We'll come right back.
01:08:08: All right.
01:08:08: Well, we are coming now to the last part of this class.
01:08:11: And before we begin the subject of subjectivism in Romans 14, I do want to mention two things.
01:08:17: One, over the break, I remembered, because I was talking to Brother Mike, that when we regard the subject of the Sabbath, there are differing views on the Sabbath.
01:08:27: Typically, the Torah observant would hold to a Saturday Sabbath.
01:08:31: Many who hold a tripartite distinction would see Sunday as the Sabbath.
01:08:36: That's the view of the Westminster Confession, as well as the London Baptist Confession.
01:08:40: So they have a view that there's still a Sabbath, but it is on a different day.
01:08:44: It's on the first day of the week rather than the seventh day.
01:08:46: But they still see Sunday as the Sabbath.
01:08:49: In fact, restaurants like Chick-fil-A, businesses like Hobby Lobby, they are closed on Sunday as an observation of the day of rest.
01:09:02: And I don't want to get into whether or not their theology is correct, because I don't know what their theology is.
01:09:08: But I know the view is that you shouldn't work one day a week.
01:09:12: And again, that becomes the ethical question.
01:09:15: Well, OK, is it wrong to cut your grass on Sunday or something like that? Is that work? Or is that a joy? What if somebody likes to cut their grass? What if they got a souped-up cool lawnmower and they consider that fun? I mean, those are questions and conversations which come into the ethic of Sabbath ethics, if you understand Sunday as the Sabbath.
01:09:35: And that does lead into what we're going to talk about, and that is the idea of subjectivism in Romans 14.
01:09:40: Before we get there, before we close, there was a picture on here.
01:09:44: There was a video.
01:09:45: That video is for another class.
01:09:47: But if you saw the lady's face, you may have recognized that that's actually a congresswoman who recently was at a prayer breakfast who made the announcement that she was in a relationship of fornication with her boyfriend.
01:09:59: And she announced that during the prayer breakfast.
01:10:01: It's interesting.
01:10:02: I'm going to when we get to our sex ethics class, I'm going to use that video.
01:10:06: But if you saw it and recognize it, that's what that's from.
01:10:08: It's very, very awkward.
01:10:10: Very awkward exchange was had at the most recent prayer breakfast.
01:10:15: So anyhow, let's talk about subjectivism in Romans 14.
01:10:21: Last week, we discussed the fact that all truth and goodness is subject to God, and therefore we can see both as objective because we have God as our standard.
01:10:33: But that does not mean that some things are not subjective for us, as Paul makes it clear that there are things which are sinful for some people and not sinful for other people.
01:10:46: And this can lead to a lot of confusion and debate, especially around the subject of ethics.
01:10:52: But we might as well just deal with it because tonight we're talking about biblical law.
01:10:57: If you're not familiar, I'm talking specifically about Romans chapter 14 verses 1 to 23 and 1 Corinthians 8 verses 1 to 13.
01:11:09: 1 Corinthians 14 deals with two subjects, and that is the subjects of dietary restrictions and day restrictions because he talks about one person observing one day and another person seeing all days the same.
01:11:21: So there's two issues of ethics in Romans 14, diet and days.
01:11:26: And in 1 Corinthians 8, it's diet because it deals with the question of eating meat sacrificed to idols.
01:11:34: Now, again, we said a moment ago we give priority to the New Testament, or at least I believe we should give priority to the New Testament.
01:11:41: And the New Testament tells us that there are times where we are bound by our conscience.
01:11:50: And I want to ask this question.
01:11:53: You may answer freely.
01:11:56: What gives us more freedom, the Bible or our conscience? We'll do it by show of hands.
01:12:07: Who thinks the Bible gives us more freedom? Who thinks our conscience gives us more freedom? OK, I'm going to surprise you.
01:12:16: I'm going with the minority.
01:12:18: Just the two of you, all right, said Bible.
01:12:20: Yeah, I believe the Bible actually gives us more freedom because the way Paul describes Romans 14 is he says we're free in certain things, but our conscience binds us beyond what the Scripture binds us.
01:12:32: So our conscience actually overbinds us where the Bible gives us freedom.
01:12:37: Bible gives us freedom in what to eat, but sometimes our conscience won't let us eat it.
01:12:41: Bible gives us freedom in regard to days, but we sometimes are bound to certain days.
01:12:46: And therefore, our conscience is actually more binding than the Scripture.
01:12:50: The reason most people think the other way that our conscience is because our conscience has become seared and allow for things that it shouldn't.
01:12:59: That's probably what you guys were thinking.
01:13:00: And I don't disagree with that.
01:13:01: But here's where I would say, even if our conscience allows us to do something the Bible forbids, we're still not allowed to do it.
01:13:08: So my point is what binds us more is actually our conscience because the Scripture actually gives us a great amount of freedom.
01:13:17: A good example of this is in the drinking of alcohol.
01:13:22: I cannot tell you how many sermons I have heard that condemn outright any imbibing of alcohol at all.
01:13:31: That even one drop is a drop too much.
01:13:36: And I had seminary professors who told me that Jesus did not turn the water in Canaan and those six water pots into fermented wine, but he turned it into unfermented wine, which I am unconvinced of that argument for two reasons.
01:13:59: One, the idea of unfermented grape juice is a relatively new concept.
01:14:08: The idea of modern Welch's grape juice is something that had to go through a process that didn't exist in the ancient world.
01:14:20: Jesus talks about the wineskins.
01:14:23: Remember, he says you don't put new wine into old wineskins.
01:14:26: Why? Because an old wineskin was already stretched out through the process of fermentation.
01:14:32: And if you put new wine into an old wineskin, it's going to further stretch it and cause it to bust in what Jesus said, then you lose all the wine and you lose the skin.
01:14:41: So you don't put old wine or new wine into old wineskins because as it ferments, it's going to bust.
01:14:48: So I am convinced that wine in the Bible is fermented.
01:14:52: I have good examples of Noah was able to get drunk on it.
01:14:56: So obviously it fermented.
01:14:58: Paul says don't get drunk on wine.
01:15:00: I've never seen somebody get drunk on Welch's grape juice.
01:15:02: I'm pretty sure they were talking about wine that does have the power to inebriate.
01:15:08: So again, I'm not debating this.
01:15:10: I'm just telling you.
01:15:12: But there are those whose conscience would not allow them to touch a drop of alcohol.
01:15:17: And for those people, I say, God bless you and live with that conscience as you see fit.
01:15:26: I'm fine with that.
01:15:27: There's no reason why I in any way should encourage a man to violate his conscience, especially if his conscience is bound in an area like that, because it may be for all kinds of reasons.
01:15:39: He may have been formerly an alcoholic.
01:15:41: I've known guys whose parents were alcoholics.
01:15:43: Therefore, they didn't want to touch a drop.
01:15:45: And they didn't want to have that issue that their parents had.
01:15:48: There's all kinds of reasons someone may not want to be an alcoholic or may want to drink.
01:15:51: And I have that issue.
01:15:55: No, I don't have that issue.
01:15:56: I have.
01:15:57: I understand that issue.
01:16:00: It's funny.
01:16:01: My father worked for Anheuser-Busch for 35 years.
01:16:04: And I've never seen my dad drink more than one beer ever at a time.
01:16:09: I've never seen my dad drunk.
01:16:10: I've never seen my dad inebriated in any way.
01:16:13: It's interesting that someone who worked around it for 35 years never saw my dad have a problem.
01:16:20: So to me, it's not an issue that I've seen in my life that is now I've seen other people have issues with it.
01:16:26: But I don't have that familial connection to that problem.
01:16:29: And therefore, I may see it a little differently than someone else.
01:16:32: But the point in all of this is simply the issue of conscience.
01:16:36: Our conscience can bind us.
01:16:39: And I would say this.
01:16:40: Some of the people in these camps, while I would say they have no right to bind my conscience, it is also not my job to tell them that they're necessarily to be loosed in their conscience either.
01:16:56: If a man feels like he should do something and it's not outside of God's ethical standard and he feels like he should do it, then that's fine.
01:17:06: I would encourage him not to stop necessarily unless he asked me my thoughts on the matter and we had a study on it and he came to a certain amount of freedom through the reading of Scripture.
01:17:19: I wouldn't want it to be me.
01:17:21: But there have been times where you study the Scripture together and you come to a better conclusion.
01:17:28: But you understand what I'm talking about with subjectivity here.
01:17:30: There are certain things that are subjective.
01:17:34: Now, this is where the danger lies.
01:17:37: Some people would say things like gender is subjective because I feel.
01:17:45: You guys know who Neil deGrasse Tyson is? Neil deGrasse Tyson is an author, astrophysicist, very famous science communicator.
01:17:54: He's been on all kinds of television programs.
01:17:58: He's really the new Carl Sagan.
01:18:00: If you remember who Carl Sagan was in the 60s and 70s, he's the modern version of that.
01:18:05: He is a smart man.
01:18:06: He is an intelligent man when it comes to science.
01:18:10: But he has recently come out in defense of the gender spectrum arguing that, yes, gender is on a spectrum and therefore you can't tell a man if he feels like he's 80 percent female one day and 20 percent female another day.
01:18:30: Who are you to tell him how he should feel? And therefore, there is no you should have nothing to say about a man who says that he feels like a woman or vice versa.
01:18:42: Now, how would you address that? How do you address the gender issue? Is that merely an issue of conscience? This is a little tougher, isn't it? No, not really.
01:18:59: OK.
01:19:03: Is the issue of gender, whether a man feels like a woman or whatever, is that issue merely an issue of conscience? That's that's more of an emotional thing, isn't it? OK, let's say A.J.
01:19:22: next week.
01:19:22: I'm going to pick on A.J.
01:19:23: for a minute.
01:19:23: I know this isn't going to happen, but let's say A.J.
01:19:26: comes and address and A.J.
01:19:29: says A.J.
01:19:30: now wants to be called Angela.
01:19:33: So moved.
01:19:38: Honestly, how should the Christian respond? Some would say, one, there's nothing wrong with it.
01:19:45: The very liberal would say there's nothing wrong with it.
01:19:48: But others would say, well, that's A.J.'s conscience.
01:19:52: And who are we to bind A.J.'s conscience? And that's where this line is easily blurred and wrong.
01:20:00: Because we do have the right to say certain things are right and certain things are wrong.
01:20:06: There are transcendent laws that we can point to.
01:20:12: And the most natural law is the law of men and women having the distinction of the male and the female.
01:20:21: And if A.J.
01:20:22: wants to convince us that he's a female, it's not going to work.
01:20:26: No.
01:20:28: And if he wants me to call him a female, he's asking me to lie.
01:20:35: That's a big issue for me.
01:20:37: When someone says, well, are you willing to call a man a woman? My answer is no.
01:20:45: Because transcendental law says I'm not supposed to lie.
01:20:49: And you're asking me to lie.
01:20:55: You see, that's where it's not an issue of conscience.
01:20:58: It's an issue of law.
01:21:01: So there are things that are difficult.
01:21:05: Sorry to pick on you, A.J.
01:21:05: You don't have to say that.
01:21:06: That's fine.
01:21:07: I was just going to say, wouldn't the line be exactly that it is prohibited? So the conscience is free in something that God has condemned.
01:21:19: That's right.
01:21:20: But if God has condemned something, your conscience has no say there.
01:21:23: I love the way you said that.
01:21:25: Exactly.
01:21:26: That is a, I wish I could, I want to try to repeat what you just said.
01:21:29: The conscience is free where God has not condemned.
01:21:34: But the conscience is not free if God has condemned.
01:21:38: That's a great way of putting it.
01:21:39: That's what I've been trying to say.
01:21:40: And you put it better than I did.
01:21:42: So thank you.
01:21:43: That's exactly right.
01:21:44: God has already bound this issue.
01:21:47: Men are men and women are women.
01:21:48: He has made it clear both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.
01:21:51: The Old Testament says women aren't supposed to dress like men and men aren't supposed to dress like women.
01:21:55: And the New Testament even talks about how our looks matter, talks about women having long hair, men having short hair.
01:22:01: And the distinguishing mark there is that women and men are not to look the same.
01:22:05: I remember preaching on 1 Corinthians 11, that's what that passage is.
01:22:09: And I remember talking about the fact that one of the things that we know we can draw from this passage, if nothing else, because I know we debate things like head coverings and stuff, but the thing we know we can draw from this passage is that men and women should be distinct.
01:22:20: Men should look like men and women should look like women.
01:22:25: Absolutely.
01:22:25: And that's a new covenant as well as an old covenant principle.
01:22:28: And what God has said as a standard, we have not the liberty to change.
01:22:36: Yeah.
01:22:36: So like I said, these are good stuff.
01:22:39: It's good conversations.
01:22:40: Hopefully this has been helpful for you.
01:22:42: This week you are going to get a short pop quiz.
01:22:48: Don't ask me how many questions it is.
01:22:49: I haven't written it yet.
01:22:50: I'm writing it tonight.
01:22:50: I wanted to make sure what I got through in class before I wrote the pop quiz.
01:22:54: So I'm gonna write the pop quiz tonight.
01:22:55: I'll send it out to you hopefully by tomorrow.
01:22:57: And you'll have between now and next Sunday to go through your first pop quiz.
01:23:01: There'll only be a few questions.
01:23:02: I just want to make sure you're keeping up with what we're doing in this class.
01:23:06: And keep in mind, your notebook will be checked at the end of class if you want to get a certificate.
01:23:11: So keep your notes.
01:23:12: If you're keeping them on iPad, that's fine.
01:23:14: However you keep your notes.
01:23:17: And don't forget to do your reading.
01:23:19: Any questions? All right, well, let's pray.
01:23:24: Father, we thank you for the opportunity to study your word tonight.
01:23:28: I thank you for the interaction of the class and how engaged everyone was.
01:23:32: I'm encouraged by that, Lord.
01:23:34: And next week as we move on to another very serious and important ethical dilemma and topics, I pray, Lord, that you'll keep us wise in the scriptures, keep us focused on what your word has to say and help us to be truly moved not only by our, or not by our emotional desires, but Lord, by your scriptures.
01:23:53: And we pray this in Jesus' name and for his sake.
01:23:56: Amen.
01:23:56: Amen.