The Ethics of Divorce

Apr 3, 21 8:40 PM

While, generally, the ethics of marriage is in agreement by a majority of Christians, the ethics of divorce is more difficult to discern. Divorce is the dissolving of marriage by a legal or customary decree and derived from the Latin divortium meaning “to separate.” Divorce differs from an annulment in that the attempted marriage was never a true marriage, and therefore invalid by the laws of society.

Divorce rates continue to be on the rise in the United States since the 1960’s, and each year we hear the claims that half of all married couples eventually end up in court. While these numbers aren’t actually accurate, nevertheless, they are extremely high and the consequences of these decisions end up affecting children the most.

In the United States, divorce has increased from four hundred thousand in 1962 to well over 1.2 million after 1980 and now has the highest rate of any modern society. The generations before the 1960’s have remained faithful while those during the next several decades have reached rates above forty percent. In Western culture before the late 60’s, just cause was usually required to obtain a divorce which meant showing that the spouse had done something wrong and therefore, allowed the couple to separate. In 1969, California became the first state to legalize no-fault divorce which meant that if either one or both spouses were dissatisfied, that was enough to meet the requirements to get a divorce. By the early 1980’s, all fifty states had some version of a no-fault divorce which peaked to 5.3 divorces per 1000 people.

The dominant early church view, by Augustine, gave permission for divorce only on the grounds of adultery. However, even for Augustine this did not break the marriage bond. This view was also endorsed by the Carthage in 407. In 1164 there was a recognition of the “seven sacraments” to include marriage and in 1564, The Council of Trent made the indissolubility of marriage a matter of faith. The moderate view of divorce progressed via the The Protestant Reformation but full divorce was not recognized until 1857. In 1970 the modern Roman Catholic Church began recognizing psychological grounds for annulment, believes the marriage bond to be dissolved, and does not allow civil divorces to remarry unless the former marriage has been declared annulled. This differs from many other countries that have the lowest divorce rates where the Roman Catholic Church does not allow divorce for any reason.

God had a design for the marriage union and divorce was never intended to play a role. God created marriage to be monogamous, one man for one woman with the intentions that they both keep their vows until death. Marriage is sacred and therefore, not to be profaned by divorce. However, this relationship by marriage does not carry on after death, but only while here on Earth. Though a divorce is never justifiable, there are circumstances where it is permissible and always forgiveable.

Scripture shows that a marriage is between a male and a female, involves a sexual union and is a covenant before God. Though not obligatory, sexual infidelity or desertion by an unbelieving spouse makes it morally permissible and should always be seen as a last resort after all attempts to reconcile have been exhausted.

There can be no doubt on what Scripture has to say about marriage. It is abundantly clear that marriage was to be a permanent relationship between a man and a woman for their remaining days as bound in a “one-flesh” relationship while here on Earth. This is seen in Genesis 2:24:

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New English Translation

Additional support for the union as well as the dissolution of it is found in Matt. 19:6:

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

While the issue occurs frequently in the Old Testament, no-where’s is divorce established or condoned by God, rather, it was simply tolerated by Hebrew law. God never intended for divorce to be part of His plan for marriage. This is evident in Mal. 2:16:

I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and the one who is guilty of violence,” says the LORD who rules over all. “Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful.

Neither is divorce permitted for any and all purposes. In fact, Jesus was asked this very question in Matthew 19:9 where He explicitly answered:

Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.

In Rom 7:1-3 and 1 Cor 7:39, Jesus teaches that widows and widowers may remarry and in Matthew 22:23-30, Jesus corrects the Sadducees by teaching them that death does break the marriage bond and in verse 30 we see that marriage does not carry on into eternity:

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is crucial because of the discussion on divorce that Jesus had with the Pharisees. It is often misinterpreted in saying that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of peoples hearts. This however is not the case. What Moses did was give protection to the wife from a husband having an affair with the possibility of taking back a wife afterwards. This practice was apparently quite common at the time and therefore commanded that a husband that divorced his wife and married another was not allowed to return to his first wife. Feinberg attributes a correct interpretation on this from Luck:

He claims that we must see this passage within the context of Deut 23:15–24:7. All the other laws in these verses attempt to protect a disadvantaged party from abuse by an advantaged one. The function of Deut. 24:1-4 is to protect a woman from a hard-hearted man who divorces her without cause. The passage prohibits her remarriage to such a man so that she would not be treated like a piece of chattel property that could be passed back and forth for the use of one man and then another.

Feinberg, John S., Feinberg, Paul D. Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, Good News Publishers. 2010. Pg. 599.

While a divorce initially seems like it will solve problems in the short-term, it also creates problems once God’s design has been forsaken in the long-run. Children, families and other relationships will experience consequences and often leave scars that are not easily healed.

The emotional trauma from a divorce shows that teens suffer the most and are more likely to engage in premarital sex, use alcohol, tobacco and drugs. A breakup of the family usually leads to rejection, loneliness, and impaired academic achievements. Studies have also shown that thirty-seven percent of children in a post-divorce family are intensely unhappy and dissatisfied with life and even those that appeared to be coping well were lonely and sorrowful of the divorce that had taken place.

There can be no question, God hates divorce. Sinful human attitudes and behaviors lead to the dissolving of marriages. Just because two people love each other doesn’t mean a marriage will succeed. Marriages are difficult and require an abundant amount of effort from both spouses. Upon such and investment of time, such efforts are worth it. Feinberg advises the following:

Rather than getting oneself into a situation where you don’t know whether you have a right to divorce or remarry, or finding yourself in an abusive situation, why not expend the effor it takes (and it does take a lot) to make your marriage work in the first place? God will honor efforts of spouses to live in accord with his original intention that marriages should be permanent!

Feinberg, John S., Feinberg, Paul D. Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, Good News Publishers. 2010. Pg. 633.

Marriages are no doubt difficult and normally strained, but even where a spouse has committed porneia or abandonment, reconciliation is still possible and preferred. In closing, Fienberg asks:


May God grant that we shall seek ways to heal troubled marriages instead of pursuing grounds for rendering them asunder!

Feinberg, John S., Feinberg, Paul D. Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, Good News Publishers. 2010. Pg. 633.
Comments Off on The Ethics of Divorce

The Ethics of Civil Disobedience

Mar 17, 21 4:38 PM

Civil disobedience is generally inspired by principled convictions and meant to call attention to a society about unjust matters for the purpose of introducing social changes. As part of a Christian ethic, understanding when civil disobedience is permissible, how to protest and do so without alienating those we are trying to reach is a key understanding for this issue. This issue is important for believers under both free and tyrannical governments.

Here in the U.S., Americans have a long history of civil disobedience beginning with the American Revolution followed by the Civil War over slavery and in the last century, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, the protest against nuclear arms, the gay rights movement and the environmental movement. Interestingly, even our declaration of Independence also professes a conviction of using just revolutions against tyrannical governments.

However, Scripture takes a different stance on civil disobedience. The apostles Peter and Paul teach from 1 Peter 2:13-14 and in Romans 13:1-5 respectively, that every believer must submit to the governing authorities and that to be rebellious towards a governing authority was to be rebellious against the very God who established every human state authority.

While there is no exhaustive treatment on the issue, the Bible distinctly shows the criteria in which civil disobedience is allowed. It also shows clear precedents for when and how civil disobedience is to be exercised.

Geisler comments that the patterns we see from Scripture shows that disobedience is done by refusal and not rebellion. Civil disobedience is to be a non-violent resistance and does not refuse discipline by the government. It is not to be a violent rebellion rejecting punishment. Resistance without rebellion should involve a spiritual, moral and political campaign against in-just governments and need not be a passive acceptance. However, Francis Schaeffer takes a slightly different stance from Geisler in justifying armed revolution under limited circumstances.

In Lex Rex [author Samuel Rutherford] does not propose armed revolution as an automatic solution. Instead, he sets forth the appropriate response to interferency by the state in the liberties of the citizenry. Specifically, he stated that if the state deliberately is committed to destroying its ethical commitment to God, the resistance is appropriate.
In such an instance, for the private person, the individual, Rutherford suggested that there are three appropriate levels of resistance: First, he must defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would most often be by legal action); second, he must flee if at all possible; and third, he may use force, if necessary, to defend himself. One should not employ force if he may save himself by flight; nor should one employ flight if he can save himself and defend himself by protest and the employment of constitutional means of regress.

Schaeffer, Francis A. 1981. A Christian Manifesto. rev. ed. Westchester, Il: Crossway.

The big question about civil disobedience is whether resistance by force is ever justified. The key phrase in Schaeffer’s justification is “if the state deliberately is committed to destroying it’s ethical commitment to God, the resistance is appropriate.” This is where Schaeffer seems to differ from Geisler, Therefore, in this one most extreme circumstance of the state abandoning it’s commitment to God is Schaeffer’s position agreeable.

Scripture does give basic guidelines which clearly command obeying civil authorities and also reports on civil disobedience. The Egyptian midwives Shiphrah and Puah refused Pharaoh to kill all male Israelite babies, Exod. 1:15-21. Rahab hid the Jewish spies opposing the king of Jericho, Josh. 2:1-14. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused by command of Nebuchadnezzar to bow before his golden image, Dan. 3. In the same book, Daniel refused the edict not to pray to God by King Darius or else face the lions den. In all of these examples, each feared God more than their governments. We are to obey the authorities over us so long as we are not required to do anything that contradicts God.

Davis makes the case from Scripture that there is biblical rationale for revolutionary action against governments, though these circumstances are extremely limited. Interestingly, he asks a key question when stating that the people of God are to be “subject to the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1). His question, “Who is the legitimate authority in the sight of God?”

When the call of God came to Gideon (Judg. 6), Gideon, rather than the Midianite rulers, became the legitimate authority for the people of Israel, and Gideon was called of God to forcibly overthrow the existing order. Although the example of the judges is taken from the history of theocratic Israel, the principle never-theless is valid: God sometimes wills the overthrow of existing authority; he even calls his own people to be the instruments of that purpose.

Davis, John Jefferson. 2015. Evangelical Ethics, Issues facing the church today: Zondervan Publishing House. Pg. 230.

Clearly, God may accomplish His purposes through the use of human instruments.

As citizens of a nation, specifically here in the U.S., we have a civil duty to take part in the election process and share in civic forms of government. As Kaiser states:

Nowhere does the Bible teach isolationism from all forms of the nation-state. Therefore, to take just one or two examples of non-involvement, a decision not to vote in any local or national elections or not to participate in any civic forms of government would be contrary to our calling as Christians and our calling as citizens in a local setting.

Kaiser, Walter C. 2009. What Does The LORD Require? Grand Rapids, Michigan. Pg. 173.

By taking part in positions of government, we as Christians are able to provide better moral examples and leadership to a nation that is morally bankrupt. Without Christian ethics, this nation will not be able to stand and civil disobedience will occur as it has in the past. If and when this time comes, we will have no choice but to make decisions about whether it is duly constituted to disobey the authorities.

Not all Christians have the same views or the same forms of government. It is likely that this latitude is to a small degree and does not mean we may do as we would like. Scripture never condones anarchy. Perhaps the greatest Scriptural verse in the New Testament concerning this matter is that of Peter and John being summoned before the Sanhedrin for teaching the people from Acts 4:19-20.

But Peter and John replied, “Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide, for it is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.

New English Translation, Acts 4:19-20.
Comments Off on The Ethics of Civil Disobedience

The Ethics of Animal Rights

Mar 13, 21 9:25 PM

Before the last 50 years, the majority of people have believed that mankind is greater than the animals because of the ability to discern what is right and wrong. However, in the last four decades equality between man and animals has seen a large increase in support to the point where advocates of these views would even have animals join into a moral community. These groups assert that factory farming, medical research and other practices should be legally banned. There are many laws around the world that protect animals from cruelty. Yet, Christianity also makes a claim for the ethics of animal rights.

The conventional view of animal rights in Western culture is similar to that of the Greeks which holds that humans are rational creatures and therefore unique. It wasn’t until the sixteenth century when Machiavelli and Montaigne refuted the unique rationality of men and a materialistic view started to emerge. In the nineteenth century, Darwin provided a scientific basis with which this view could further progress. Based on Darwin’s work, animal rights advocates of today hold to many positions which usually protect animals from being used in any way and would have an animals rights to be equal to that of man.

The Biblical view is that God created the Earth and all living things in it, which includes the animals. He has placed them under the authority and responsibility of man in a role of stewardship over the Earth and established a covenant with every living creature. The Bible does show that God is merciful and cares for animals as well. However, because God disapproves of sin, He approved of animal sacrifices for the atonement of men since they both share a life blood. It is important to note that, as Geisler explains, Christians are widely divided on this view for reasons of philosophical presuppositions and the choice of a hermeneutical methodology.

Scripture shows that animals do not have rights like those of man. They are not to be protected above that of human life as they are not valued to the degree that man is by God. Man and animal are very different creatures where, man is made in the image of God, and an animal is not. Man has been given dominion over animals and though animals are given to man as food, we are to treat the life of animals kindly, properly, and responsibly. The Biblical guiding principle is stewardship.

Mankind has stewardship over God’s creation and was meant to care for everything in it. This includes all animal life which is to be respected and valued. God has given people the right to use animals for survival with the responsibility of exercising this privilege in both a humane and sustainable manner.

As to the value of animals, we find that they were never placed in charge of creation, nor are they responsible to God in maintaining the created order. They were not created for this purpose and do not carry the image of God from within. In Genesis 1:26, God states that we are stewards of the land and the animals:

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”

New English Translation, Genesis 1:26.

And again in Psalms 8:5-8:

Of what importance is the human race, that you should notice them? Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them, and make them a little less than the heavenly beings? You grant mankind honor and majesty; you appoint them to rule over your creation; you have placed everything under their authority, including all the sheep and cattle, as well as the wild animals, the birds in the sky, the fish in the sea and everything that moves through the currents of the seas.

New English Translation, Psalm 8:5-8.

In Genesis 2:19-20, Adam demonstrated the authority that God had given him by naming them and in Matthew 6:26, Jesus clearly states the value of man over the animals as well as their importance to Him:

Look at the birds in the sky: They do not sow, or reap, or gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you more valuable than they are?

New English Translation, Matthew 6:26.

It is not because of our rights that we are to be good stewards of animals, rather, it is that God has entrusted us with this responsibility, to care for what is His. Proverbs 27:23 states:

Pay careful attention to the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds,

New English Translation, Proverbs 27:23.

In Genesis 9:3, we find that God has given animals to us for food and in Genesis 9:9-10, God establishes His covenant with every living creature on Earth:

“Look! I now confirm my covenant with you and your descendants after you and with every living creature that is with you, including the birds, the domestic animals, and every living creature of the earth with you, all those that came out of the ark with you – every living creature of the earth.

New English Translation, Genesis 9:9-10.

These verses show the importance of all living creatures to God.

There are several implications to these non-Christian views which make an animals right equal to that of man. Even many Christians state that man should be vegetarians or vegans and some extend this view even further and believe animals have souls and should be included into the covenant of grace. Supporters of animal rights do not purchase items made of leather, nor would they allow people to hunt, be placed in zoos, be used in events of entertainment such as bullfighting or in a circus and allow for them to be used in medical experiments.

The truth is that from a Christian perspective, man has dominion over animals in a role of responsibility, that life is sacred and therefore belongs to God which includes animal life as well. We are obligated in our role to practice good stewardship over animals and creation. Kaiser sums up the situation with the following:

Scripture does call for a kind and generous care of the animal world, but the full healing of the created realm is not promised until the time when the Messiah returns. This is no more a loophole that allows for outrageous maltreatment of animals than the dominion of humans over the earth is an excuse for abuse of the environment. Balanced thinking and acting is required in any case.

Kaiser, Walter C., 2009. What Does The LORD Require? Grand Rapids, Michigan. Pg. 219.

He continues on that in this environment after the fall where things are out of order, that we as Christians have this hope for the animals:

We wait for our Lord to fix what the fall badly damaged, without using it as an excuse for abuse of the created order or of animals.

Kaiser, Walter C., 2009. What Does The LORD Require? Grand Rapids, Michigan. Pg. 219.

A Christian view where the animal world is treated in a kind and generous manner, responsibly by man results in a consistent and coherent position which therefore allows for the better treatment of animals and their purpose as given by God.

Comments Off on The Ethics of Animal Rights

The Ethics of Capital Punishment

Mar 10, 21 10:19 PM

Interestingly, capital punishment is one issue where religious believers make some of the most ardent and passionate arguments from either side of the debate. It was in 1972 that brought a landmark judgement where the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty of two states violated the Eight Amendment based on the fact that there was no clear standard used to punish those selected for the death penalty.

In this day, capital punishment is still practiced in African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. And while many other countries still have capital punishment as law, there are those that have not used it for many years and yet others that will apply it to crimes other than murder. The majority of countries in Europe have disallowed it, yet, the U.S. is still one of the few developed countries that still uses capital punishment in it’s system of law. Until 1972, every state allowed the death penalty, from which now only thirty-one states employ the penalty while another nineteen have prohibited it. There have been three significant cases, all brought forward in Georgia to the U.S. Supreme Court starting in 1972 and since then support continues to decline. According to Feinberg, in 2005, only sixty-four percent of the American public now support the sentence.

The main form of punishment for Western countries is imprisonment. During incarceration, the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment, the proportion of the punishment with the crime and from punishment without due process of law.

Retentionists are those that favor the death penalty, though they are more likely to not agree to the particular circumstances of their arguments or the position that they hold, they do often point out support from the Old Testament. Abolitionist, who although may disagree with some of their own arguments, they will always agree that the death penalty is morally unjustified and often allude to the New Testament. The issue at hand, whether Retentionist, Abolishinist, or somewhere’s in between, is the disagreement which stems from the primary goal of retribution, deterrence, or rehabilitation. The biblical view of man’s nature is “total depravity”, and therefore, a deterrent is necessary for people to obey the law.

Feinberg states that capital punishment involves several key issues, and therefore, asks the following questions. 1) Is capital punishment permissible, 2) is capital punishment mandatory, 3) if permissible and/or mandatory, then which crimes are punishable, and 4) if punishable, what methods are to be used?

Capital punishment is permissible and mandatory in cases of premeditated murder. However, the number of crimes punishable are very limited and laws for convicting a person for a capital crime should be very rigorous and many legislative revisions are needed before applying such a sentence. Both law and punishment should reflect morality and the breaking of the moral law is punishable resulting in the practice of retributive justice by the state.

Although there is legitimate debate on this issue, the problem comes from a lack of wisdom by the public as well as those in government. This demand for justice is God’s alone and while we are to have compassion for all those involved, God has always taught that we will be judged by our deeds.

Feinberg shows the consistency of capital punishment as being a pro-life ethic on at least three grounds:

… a sanctity-of-life ethic, a demand to treat all persons justly, and a commitment to non-consequentialist ethics. Given a sanctity-of-life ethic, human life is sacred and must be protected. Hence, abortion and euthanasia are ruled out. Execution of murderers underscores the sanctity of life and the seriousness of taking the innocent life of others. As to justice, the unborn, the aged, and the infirm have done nothing deserving of death. The convicted murderer has. Justice demands rejecting abortion and euthanasia and executing murderers. Finally, on a non-consequentialist theory of ethics such as ours, God prescribes the protection of the innocent and the punishment of those who take innocent life. If one follows those divine commands, he must reject abortion and euthanasia and favor capital punishment.

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. 2010. Ethics For A Brave New World. Wheaton, Illinois. Crossway.

At the heart of the issue in capital punishment is justice where penal and judicial systems play the central role in it’s distribution. The latter requires that we understand that we are not morally responsible for an act unless we are free to do the act. Therefore, retribution cannot be unjust if the criminal freely committed the crime. Romans 13:1-7 gives authority to these state systems to discipline those in a non-vengeful way who break the law. Retribution is meant for the unjust and is very different from vengeance which God is clearly opposed to. Since upholding justice is the purpose of the state, retribution must be used.

Feinberg argues from Rev. 20:11-15 that no one would suffer eternal punishment for rejecting Christ if God Himself did not use retribution. As is apparent, Feinberg’s view that abortion and euthanasia are not contradictory to capital punishment rely on the accuracy of exegetical biblical interpretation.

Genesis 9:6 confirms the sanctity of life with respect to the death penalty:

Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made humankind.

New English Translation, Genesis 9:6

This command was given before the Mosaic law. The truth of this principle is that man and woman were created in the image of God. Rae makes a statement in support of this position:

The life-for-life principle and its link to the image of God in human beings seems to support the notion that murder and the consequence for murder — taking the murderer’s life — are not morally the same thing.

Rae, Scott B. 2009. Moral Choices, An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic.

The case for retributive justice is based on a systematic theology where God’s command reveals which acts are prohibited and can be punished.

There are many abuses to capital punishment today which require more exacting measures governing convicted cases. Feinberg gives statistics showing that this practice is disproportionately unfair against minorities and the poor as they will likely have inferior legal council. As taught in Scripture, there was a high degree of certainty about the guilt of someone accused by requiring two eyewitnesses to prevent a person from receiving the death penalty as opposed to circumstantial evidence alone. This is stronger than newer technologies which can be falsified. Even witnesses can falsely testify which is why perjury in a capital case is also a capital crime. The degree to the amount of certainty required by biblical standards exceeds that of the “reasonable doubt” standard used in our legal system here in the U.S. As humans, we do make errors, and both sides of this debate agree that individuals that did not commit the crime have received the death penalty.

Comments Off on The Ethics of Capital Punishment

The Ethics of Abortion

Mar 8, 21 10:36 PM

Abortion is one of the most challenged and debated moral issues of our time and more so in the U.S. than in any other country around the world. The advancements in biotechnology have exponentially made the issues more complex and more explosive with the introduction of bioethics in the 1960’s by Catholic and Protestant scholars as they contend with these new technologies. Generally, there are four aspects at the heart of abortion. These include the legal background, the biblical and theological contribution, abortion rights and the problems with personhood.

In Western culture, abortion laws have generally followed the U.S. courts’ position on abortion and globally as well with few exceptions. In 1973 the landmark case of Roe v. Wade took place where Texas courts ruled that abortion was prohibited except to save the mothers life. The result was that the court divided the pregnancy into three trimesters in which the state holds a distinct interest. During the first trimester, the woman has the right to an abortion. In the second, the state may regulate in ways that are reasonably related to the mother. The final trimester the state may regulate and prohibit the abortion. However, Roe v. Wade has been significantly broadened by the Doe v. Bolton case which makes abortion on demand available at almost any point in a woman’s pregnancy. Feinberg points out the results of these decisions:

Even more revealing and troubling are statistics on why U.S. women are actually having abortions. The CBER, whose statistics are derived from the AGI and Planned Parenthood’s \textit{Family Planning Perspectives}, reports that only 1 percent of all U.S. abortions occur because of rape or incest. Six percent of abortions are performed because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child. In contrast, “93\% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).”

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. 2010. Ethics For A Brave New World. Wheaton, Illinois. Crossway.

Scripture takes an opposite stance on abortion by answering the question at the heart of the debate, personhood as it relates to the fetus. Many passages are found that clearly represent a continuity of personal identity from the earliest stages of a pregnancy all the way into adulthood. Jeremiah 1:5 is one of the strongest biblical passages using conception and birth interchangeably; however, it is in Psalms 139:13-16 where the most pertinent statement is made in God’s involvement of the unborn:

Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother’s womb. I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly; my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb. All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence.

Scripture, God’s direct revelation to humanity, is the guiding source for taking a right pro-life position. This decision states that elective abortions, sex selection, pills such as RU-486, sexual encounters, rape, incest, fetal tissues and a majority of reproductive technologies are all amoral according to God’s Word. While hard cases do exist, it is above ninety-eight percent of all abortions where the mother always has options available which do not need to result in the termination of human life and where other solutions should be sought for the well-being of both fetus and mother.

In a pro-life position, the status of the unborn is fully human, the basis for this position is sanctity of life, and the mothers rights prioritize life over privacy. Geisler summarizes this position as follows:

The abortion debate focuses the whole issue of the sanctity of human life. Both Scripture and science support the view that an individual human life begins at conception, and both special and general revelation declare that it is wrong to kill an innocent human life. Furthermore, the same arguments used to justify abortion may also be used to justify infanticide and euthanasia. These reasons all violate the sanctity of human life.

Geisler, Norman L. 2010. Christian Ethics, Contemporary Issues & Options. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic.

We must not forget that the decision not to practice sexual abstinence in the first place is a sin which leads to the choice of an abortion, a practice that is almost unheard of in today’s culture.

Justification for this ethical position originated from the Ten Commandments and it is in the sixth commandment where the bible resoundingly defends innocent life:

Thou shall not murder.

The act of murder is defined as the taking of a human life. Therefore, this requires that the fetus be identified with personhood. Perhaps one of the most clearly stated verses where the continuity of personal identify, between conception and birth, is found in Jeremiah 1:5:

Before I formed you in your mother’s womb I chose you. Before you were born I set you apart. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations.

God gives the same characteristics to the unborn as to those outside of the womb, and in doing so, demonstrates a constancy of personal identity when describing the unborn. Therefore, the unborn does have personhood, is a person from conception and God protects innocent life by this command.

This position also contends that a persons rights over ones own body are not absolute. The pro-choice position is born out of selfishness. Rae states the recent change of position by pointing out:

Historically in Western society, when life and freedom (choice) have been in conflict, life always has taken precedence. Only if the fetus is not a person does a woman have a right to make a choice that would result in its death.

Rae, Scott B. 2009. Moral Choices, An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic.

The pro-choice position is also a position that is supported logically. Scripture states that humans are made in the image of God and based on this, Feinberg sees the qualifications of personhood as part of an overall argument from logic:

That argument has three steps that lead to a conclusion, and we need to make the case for each step to show that the conclusion not only follows from the premises but is likely true. The argument is as follows:
1. If x is an embryo made from human sperm and a human egg, then x is a human being.
2. If x is a human being, then x is (is made in) the image of God.
3. If x is (is made in) the image of God, x is a human person.
4. If x is a human being, x is a human person (from 1 – 3).

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. 2010. Ethics For A Brave New World. Wheaton, Illinois. Crossway.

Because of this continuity of personal identity, this shows a rational and sensible thought process exercised by God in which he has deemed right and good for humanity. The position of never taking a human life from conception, through birth and into adulthood also shows coherent support. The consistency of protecting human life only gains support as it is extended beyond the issue of abortion and into all other areas of life.

There is no valid reason to terminate the life of a human. The implications to date have been colossally tragic for our culture, the loss of billions of unborn since the practice began, to the point of being defined as infanticide for many countries to include the US.

Comments Off on The Ethics of Abortion

Worldview: Reality

Mar 10, 18 4:14 PM

Metaphysics is another primary aspect of a world-view which deals with the nature of reality, also known as an ultimate reality. This branch of philosophy attempts to answer the question of “What is real?”, or what does reality consist of. Is reality an object that is shared among all things, is it completely spiritual, material, or a combination? When asking the question of what is real, it can be in the context of truth, human beings, freewill, the nature of God, the universe, or the relationships between these, to name a few. However, at it’s core, it is generally referred to as Ontology, or the study of being as being. Ontology asks, “What is there?”

Reality is a kind of truth, and truth is that which is, fact, and knowable. All things that have been, are now, and will be, both seen and unseen, are created by God from nothing. The heavens and the Earth were not eternal, are not self-sufficient, nor is there any co-existence between them and God. There is purpose in the universe and all that exists within it. All of creation is God ordained and God allows us to see how it works through science and philosophy. There is a dualism that makes up a human being, a soul and a physical body and very likely a triism, body, mind, and soul which gives us an identity. Miracles are possible and are caused outside of space and time, and are acts of God intervening in His creation. However, science alone does not have the tools necessary to prove or disprove the spiritual unseen world.

In simplest terms, reality is truth, and truth is that which is. That which is, is what exists, and our existence along with our thoughts are things that all men share allowing us to rationalize our existence. Our reality is knowable because we make use of the first principle along with solid reasoning to know what claims about reality are true. This first principle, known as the law of non-contradiction, is both unavoidable and self-evident. We understand that the universe was made from nothing as stated in Hebrews 11:3 and by Him in John 1:1-3. Additional supporting Scripture can be found in Genesis 1:1, Jeremiah 10:12, Isaiah 45:12, Job 38:4-6, John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Isaiah 44:24, Genesis 1:3-2:3, and Psalm 33:6. This is why the first Words in Scripture start with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Time, space, and matter did not exist before the beginning of the world.

The word science comes from the Latin term scire which means to know. There is an implied order of knowledge that is required to infer proper conclusions. The discipline of science is grounded on first principles and the reasoning of philosophy. Science allows for us to investigate the physical world and reason for the reality in which we live, but again, science is not capable of answering philosophical questions in a way that logic does for mathematics.

The purpose of the universe is declared in Psalms 19:1 and John Piper expands on it’s purpose as planned from eternity as the revelation for his glory and that as the ultimate reason for the universe:

This glory would be supremely displayed in God’s grace. This grace would be supremely glorified in Jesus. And the apex of that glorification in Jesus would be reached when He was slain to save a people who would spend eternity magnifying the greatness of that grace.

In other words the universe was created for the glorification of God’s grace at Calvary, echoing through eternity in the Christ-exalting joys of the redeemed.

Piper, John. “Why God Created the Universe – For Good Friday” Desiring God, April 2011, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-god-created-the-universe-for-good-friday (Accessed: 2018-06-10)
Comments Off on Worldview: Reality

Worldview: God

Mar 2, 18 3:45 PM

Every world-view, held by any person, no matter what religion or culture has one most important and essential element above all others. This is what one believes, or does not believe about God making it the absolute cornerstone for one’s entire world-view.

For the Christian, God is the one ultimate being, perfect in every way. In simplest terms, God can be defined as, “He IS!” This makes Him eternal, pre-existent, independent, and self-existent. He is infinite and unlimited, and therefore, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. He is the uncaused first cause of all things seen and unseen, sovereign over all of creation. He is unchanging and immutable. He has will, emotions, is moral, and probably most importantly, He is love. The latter makes Him personal, the giver of life and forgiver of sins. He consist of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in perfect unity as One, and completely separate from all things created. Yet He is concerned with and involved in the happenings of humanity and all of creation, and has been since the beginning of creation.

The closest we can relate to knowing God in this age is through the person of Jesus Christ, God incarnate. For a believer to have a correct world-view, it is essential to understand God in order to properly interpret our experiences and beliefs. Without basing one’s world-view on a proper understanding of who God is results in a confused and misleading testimony of truth to others and a misled life.

God told Moses the meaning of His name by responding in Exodus 3:14, “I AM that I AM.” The meaning here is that His name is connected to the verb “to be” expressing his eternal nature, character, and essence. God is eternal, meaning He was not a created being. The principle of causality, which states that every event has an adequate cause, does not apply to God. This principle does not state that all things need a cause, rather, it means that all things that have a beginning must have a cause. Saying that God must also have a beginning is to make a categorical mistake by placing God in the category of things created. The existence of God is eternal, His existence is truth. Without His existence, rationality and first principles are indefensible.

Regarding His character and essence, Jesus claimed to be the living God incarnate and the only way one could possibly know of Christ before His incarnation is through what is called Special Revelation, i.e., the Bible. Knowing Christ is knowing God. Support for His claims come via messianic prophecy, a miraculous and sinless life, and His resurrection from the dead through Special Revelation. By General Revelation, the Bible begins by assuming that every man believes in God and makes no case that God exists for the simple fact that He has already revealed Himself to man. The Apostle Paul teaches in Romans 1:20 that all men are without excuse having knowledge of God. 1 John 4:8 tells us that God is love. While there are other sources less credible being tainted by the biases of men, we also have other letters outside of Scripture that tell us about God:

You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone, revealing that you are a letter of Christ, delivered by us, written not with ink, but by the Spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets but on tablets of human hearts.

NET, 2 Co. 3:2-3

All things that exist, exist because of a first cause. We know by using the laws of logic, otherwise known as first principles, along with philosophy and reasoning that God is self-existent, uncaused, infinite, and unchangeable, thereby making God the first cause of all things seen and unseen. And we know the claims of Jesus Christ to be true because He shares in these non-transferable attributes of God. In John 8:56-59, we read where Jesus referred to Himself as YHWH, meaning “I AM.” We see this again in John 18:4-6. Jesus lets us know the relationship between being saved and His true identity in John 17:3-5. In John 5:23 we find that Jesus wants us to worship Him in the same way that we worship the Father. John 17:5 He asserted that He shares in the glory of God throughout eternity.

You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross!

NET, Phl. 2:5-8

Having a correct perspective of God is absolutely fundamental in the world-view of a believer. Without believing these truths, we become confused and mislead other with our testimony, we walk through life not realizing how others are affected by the decisions we make, nor are we able to discern the influences upon us by an unbelieving world.

Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

NET, Col. 2:8

Basing our world-view on the truths of God helps us in developing a stronger and deeper faith while protecting us from the ideas of a secular culture.

Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect.

NET, Rom. 12:2

Comments Off on Worldview: God

An Introduction to Worldviews

Feb 27, 18 2:27 PM

World-views directly impact the way in which we see and interact with the world, something that every individual adheres to. It is one’s perspective of a philosophical system on how the world operates and how we are to relate with the world. A world-view is an organized set of ideas and doctrines, an arrangement of principles that we rely upon in trying to comprehend the processes or functions of a working system of the world around us. Our understanding of these ideas and how they interact with the world must hold and work together in a way that will explain one’s ideology as a systematic whole. The way in which one thinks, makes sense of, and further interprets past, present, and future experiences is based on this systematic belief model from which the individual has constructed, either consciously or unconsciously, correctly or incorrectly. This conceptually becomes the framework of one’s beliefs and assumptions.

A world-view most commonly consists of, and is not limited to, the following components. God, metaphysics, reality, knowledge, truth, humanity, evil, and ethics. A world-view may also contain a set of ideals, or the disparity between them. The consequences of having a right perspective are many and varied making this aspect of our lives extremely important. We influence others by the way in which we live, by our thoughts, our emotions, our reactions, and our behaviours which leads to further ramifications on society. Studies have shown that beliefs are not chosen based on evidence, rather, people choose what’s most attractive to them. The attractiveness of a belief has been a critical factor in whether or not a person accepts the Gospel message. Every idea has consequences. When having a correct world-view based on a solid foundation, one is less likely to accept the social issues that are opposed by a Christian world-view. The Apostle Paul wrote:

Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. – Col 2:8.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New English Translation

In this verse, Paul teaches that any philosophy that is not from Christ is a “deceitful philosophy”, and equates to not having a correct world-view. A philosophy not based on Christ is the difference between knowing the truth of Christ or believing a lie from the world.

This is a series of post meant to define and defend God, reality, truth, knowledge, humanity, and evil which compose the basic elements of one’s world-view.

Comments Off on An Introduction to Worldviews

The Imprecatory Psalms

Sep 12, 15 3:27 PM

The imprecatory Psalms have often been troubling for Christians. These Psalms which call for the punishment upon one’s enemies are often difficult to harmonize with the teachings of Christ in which we are to love our enemies. First, we get a definition of exactly what the Imprecatory Psalms are from an online encyclopedia of Christianity, Theopedia:

Imprecatory psalms are those those psalms that contain curses or prayers for the punishment of the psalmist’s enemies. To imprecate means to invoke evil upon, or curse. Psalms 7, 35, 55, 58, 59, 69, 79, 109, 137 and 139 all contain prayers for God’s judgment on the psalmist’s enemies.

http://www.theopedia.com/Imprecatory_Psalms

These imprecatory psalms are often the reason that most people believe that an apparent antithesis exists between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The imprecatory prayers and psalms have been severely neglected.

Perhaps one of the strongest psalms in the psalter which most Christians view as troubling is Psalm 109. This psalm is a prayer for the punishment of the wicked. It is the description of a ghastly account of an attempted homosexual rape of a Levite, the brutal rape of his concubine, and the dismembering of her body. The twelve pieces of her body were sent to the twelve tribes of Israel by her husband. In this psalm, the author David calls upon God to destroy his enemies in horrific ways using no less than 30 anathemas. Another which many regard as the most difficult is Psalm 137:8-9 which uses language such as “dash [your infants] against the rocks”.

There are other Psalms which contain similar prayers towards those that do evil. And it’s not just in the book of Psalms, but we find prayers of imprecation for the destruction of those willing to do evil throughout the Word of God. Moses prayed “Rise up, O Lord! And let thine enemies be scattered, and let those who hate Thee flee before Thee” (Num. 10:35). Jeremiah spoke words of imprecation (Jer. 18:19-23). There are also examples in the New Testament from the saints who were slain for their righteousness (Rev. 6:9-10).

In order to harmonize these judgmental attitudes found in the imprecatory psalms with the teachings of Christ, we must realize, as Kaiser shares, the key is in understanding. The psalmist is not praying to God out of malice and vindictiveness, or at the delight of the sufferings of others. These invocations are prayers addressed to God, they are earnest pleadings from the psalmist asking that God step in and correct matters that have been so grossly distorted that, without the divine intervention of God himself, all hope for justice is lost. Kaiser continues to observe:

These hard sayings are legitimate expressions of the longings of Old Testament saints for the vindication that only God’s righteousness can bring. They are not statements of personal vendetta, but utterances of zeal for the kingom of God and His glory.[2]

Walter C. Kaiser Jr. 1984. Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Press. Pg. 280

It must also be noted that the imprecations which are repeated in prayer had already been stated elsewhere by God. These prayers would be the fate of those who were consistently impenitent towards God and His Kingdom. Adams writes:

David observed the same principles in his time as Paul did later. The Lord’s anointed of the Old Testament and the apostle of Christ in the New Testament are in complete friendship. The rule for both is stated well by David, the author of the great majority of the psalms of imprecation. First Samuel 24:12 records his words to his deadly enemy Saul who has been hunting David to kill him (see v. 11): “May the Lord judge between you and me. And may the Lord avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you.

James E. Adams, 1991. War Psalms of the Prince of Peace. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. Pg. 46-47.

We must be very careful in our prayers and what we ask for. We see that these prayers are rightly justified. Still one may ask, why is it that we think asking God to bring judgement on the wicked is wrong? Adam’s continues:

Then where do we get the idea that is is wrong to ask God to bring judgement on the wicked? That mentality creeps up on us so subtly that it has become a very common idea in our day. You may even have heard a fellow Christian express such an intense love for friends or relatives that God’s judgement against their evil deeds is rejected. It is possible to perceive such deep feeling of love for another as very “Christian” while failing to realize that what is being expressed actually evidences a lack of love for God. In addition, such ideas demonstrate a woefully inadequate comprehension of the seriousness of man’s sin against a holy God.

James E. Adams, 1991. War Psalms of the Prince of Peace. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. Pg. 46-47.

Always lead with a blessing, be willing to imprecate yourself, and understand that these imprecatory prayers are a legitimate means to a legitimate end and that Gods will be done.

Comments Off on The Imprecatory Psalms

Understanding Babylon

Jul 26, 15 3:43 PM

In order to understand Christ’s return and the last days, it is helpful to understand Babylon. Just as Jerusalem is the city of God, Babylon is themed throughout the Bible as the city of abominations and false worship.

Babylon is Akkadian which means “the Gate of the God(s).” The etymology of the name Babel as found in the Bible means “confused”, Genesis 11:9. Babel is the Hebrew name and Babylon is the Greek form of the Hebrew name.

The origin of Babylon can be found in Genesis 10:8-10. It was one of the first known cities founded by the great-grandson of Noah, Nimrod the son of Cush, grandson of Ham. Nimrod was renowned for rebelling against God.

In 626 BC, the city of Babylon became the capital of the ancient land of the Babylonian empire in southern Mesopotamia, the land of Shiner as told in Genesis 10:10. This location is 50 miles south of modern day Baghdad on the Euphrates River just north of the town al-Hillah in modern day Iraq. The existence of Babylon could only be found in the Bible until it was eventually discovered during excavations in 1898.

Since it’s beginnings, Babylon has had a long history as the center of religious significance and has been the source of false religion and rebellion against God, the center of false worship. In the Bible, Babylon is seen as the symbol of confusion caused by godlessness, the symbol of Gentile glory and moral and religious wickedness, a symbol of power, materialism, and cruelty.

Genesis 11:1-9 records the dispersion of the nations at Babel. The Lord judged the people and confused the common languages and vocabularies as spoken by the entire Earth because of their arrogance in building idolatrous shrines. In Genesis 11:9, we find how the name Babel was given:

That is why its name was called Babel — because there the LORD confused the language of the entire world, and from there the LORD scattered them across the face of the Earth.

The Bible reveals that all false systems of religion began in the land of Babylon. Using the Bible to interpret the Bible, we find that in Revelation 17:5, every form of false religion can be traced back to Babylon:

On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the Mother of prostitutes and of the detestable things of the earth.”

Babylon was an extremely wealthy city, the center of economic activity with trade routes throughout the region. Compared to a modern day superpower, it’s destruction seemed unlikely. The downfall of Babylon was foretold by the prophets Jeremiah (51-52) and Isaiah (13-14). Although these prophecies have come to fruition, continued study of these prophesies shows they have not yet been completely fulfilled because they also foretell a future time where Babylon will rise again and come to prominence. The absolute annihilation of Babylon was also foretold, yet Babylon today is still in existence and occupied. The destruction of Babylon will not fulfill prophecy until the last days as told in Revelation 18:20-21:

(Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, for God has pronounced judgment against her on your behalf!) Then one powerful angel picked up a stone like a huge millstone, threw it into the sea, and said “With this kind of sudden violent force Babylon the great city will be thrown down and it will never be found again!”

The destruction of Babylon is very much associated with the restoration of Israel to its land. Upon the restoration of Israel will be spiritual blessings of renewed fellowship between God and man which has been cast away for a time, and will then return. See Jeremiah 51:4-6, 50:18-19, 50:28, 50:34, and 51:20-23. Although Israel has returned as a nation, the fulfillment of these predictions is clearly not yet complete.

Comments Off on Understanding Babylon