Author: Nick Peters

In our discussion on actions that are moral and immoral, I have decided that I simply need to make a statement about moral absolutism. Why do I believe that such things as moral absolutes exist? I do believe that moral relativism is one of the most dangerous philosophies of our day. As Dostoevsky made clear, if God does not exist, anything is permitted.

I would like to start by saying that there are statements called propositions. They contain a coherent though with a subject and a predicate. “The grass is green” is a proposition. “I am writing my blog” is a proposition. “The planet Earth is the sixth planet from the sun” is a proposition.

Now, I hope most readers know that I intentionally put in a false proposition. After all, we all know that grass is really blue. (It begged to be done!) The point is that if all the terms in a proposition are understood properly, then the proposition can either be true or false. I do not know of a proposition that is neither. Some might seem incredibly wild to us, but they would either be true or false. We might say some are just stupid.

So let us consider some moral propositions.

It is good to love your neighbor as yourself. (Note that propositions can be put with the predicate first. This could read “Loving your neighbor as yourself is good.”)

It is wrong to torture babies purely for the joy it brings  you.

Giving money to the poor is a right thing to do.

Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is wrong.

The holocaust was a wicked event.

All of these are statements about moral beliefs. I would hope that all of us would take a stance on them. I wonder about the person who says “It may be wrong for you to torture a baby for fun, but I just think that everyone should decide for themselves.” If it wasn’t for so many of our pyschologists trying to explain away sin as well, I’d suggest that people with such a view go see them.

Friends. I really think it’s bizarre that we even have to argue for such a thing. Imagine how exactly you would formulate an argument to convince someone that it is wrong to torture babies for fun. Now in some cases, you can make moral arguments with people, but that is because they agree on a larger framework of morality and want to know if what they are doing falls within the moral or immoral aspect.

What part is it that someone does not know is wrong? Is it torture? Is it murder? Is it the fact that it’s a baby? What part? Why is it that this kind of action would be condemned throughout the world? While we speak of diverse differences among moral teachings of the world, the truth is the reverse. There are many principles that every society agrees on.

Take cowardice for an example. C.S. Lewis asked us to try to think of a world where it was good to be a coward. I’ve heard some people use Pacifist groups as a counter-example, but that doesn’t work. Pacifists don’t refuse to fight because they’re cowards. They refuse to fight because they think it is immoral.  Does this mean though that they will never act with courage? No. There are many other ways to be courageous and many other ways to be cowardly.

In fact, that we even have such terms to define such actions is sufficient. Why do we speak of good and evil or right and wrong or moral and immoral? Furthermore, we don’t really have a hard time understanding these concepts. If we meet up with a complete stranger, we can understand them.

When we get into arguments about morality, we even assume that moral absolutism is true. If it isn’t, why would you argue with someone about it? C.S. Lewis uses the example of a quarrel between two men over who got the seat first on a bus. You don’t hear anyone say “Why should I hold to your moral framework?” in the quarrel. No. The moral framework is assumed and it’s up to us to decide who fits and doesn’t fit into it.

Now I can think of a possible rejoinder about some people might say our taste in music is subjective and our taste in food and movies and such as well so these are subjective propositions.

My stance on this is that I haven’t been convinced that they are subjective. There are some kinds of music that I do not think qualify as music and I make that as an objective claim. There are some foods we think some people are crazy for not liking and some that if we thought they’d like, we’d be stunned.

Lewis Grizzard told the story about a man who had the job of selling toothbrushes on the street and didn’t have any luck. Then he got an idea and started serving cookies to people. They’d take a bite and say “This tastes like dog doo!” He’d answer, “That’s what it is. Would you like to buy a toothbrush?”

No one has to have that story explained. We all seem to believe immediately even though I doubt few of us have ever eaten it that “Dog doo tastes terrible.” Most of us would even reel at the thought of having to try it. On the other hand, if you told me “Peanut butter tastes terrible,” I would wonder what exactly was wrong with your mind.

Note that this isn’t about healthiness or unhealthiness. We usually find that easier to agree on. In fact, we find that what most of us enjoy is not considered healthy and what most of us don’t enjoy is what is considered healthy. We agree though that there is a healthy and an unhealthy. I’d say that a properly functioning human with properly functioning taste buds would find some things tasty and some not just as he should find some things beautiful and some not.

One main contention though is that people don’t live this lifestyle out. When someone cuts them off in driving they don’t think “Oh. Well his moral framework must justify him cutting me off in traffic.” No. They might likely wave their hand (Or finger) out the window and yell obscenities and profanities.

What are they to say? “He should respect my moral framework?” Why should he. Why should anyone care about anyone’s moral framework. The ultimate result of this would be tyranny. Plato taught a monarchy as the best form of government and tyranny as the worst. In monarchy, a king represents the law. In tyranny, a king is the law. One realizes there’s a standard outside himself. (That’s why our Legislative Branch consists of Legislators and not lawmakers) The other thinks his view is the standard.

Is there any way moral relativism could avoid that? They might not have one man as the ruler, but rest assured if they want some form of government, some men will be the leaders and it is their view that will be the morality and everyone else will be expected to respect it. (Even though the only reason would be “respect or suffer.”)

This also means that relativists cannot complain about the Problem of Evil. If you ever see a relativist complaining about the Problem of Evil, as they will do, call them on it. If they ever complain about intolerance, call them on it. If they complain about the Crusades or the Inquisition or the conquest of the promised land, call them on it. If they make any moral claim they expect to be treated as an absolute, call them on it.

Friends. This is a fight we cannot afford to lose. Let’s be sure we don’t back down.

Those who know me well will know why I title the blog the way I do since the lady I wish to honor tonight would not be known by many as Cruiser. A select few of us though do know her as that, but this one deserves special honor as well. I shall call her Cruiser though for the remainder of this blog.

Cruiser is one that I’ve never met, but would love to. When I think of people that possess a heart of gold, I think of her. I have found her to be someone I can talk to about anything. (In case people who don’t know who she is, I’ll go on and state that she’s older than I am and has been happily married for several years.) She has become a “Mom” to several of us.

Cruiser has a very sweet side. She’s the one who always greets you with a hug and will always take the time to listen to whatever pain is in your life. For me, she’s been there through one of the happiest times of my life and she’s also been there through one of the saddest.

That’s the big thing though. She’s been there. She is in no way a fair-weather friend. She is someone you can count on to always be there. Don’t think though that she’s a pushover. She is far from it. People who know Cruiser know that when she gets angry, you’d better get out of the way. She can turn from sweet and kind to fierce and deadly in seconds, and most of us enjoy it when she does.

Through thick and thin, Cruiser is always there for you. She’s just one of these people who is so sweet and kind that she just naturally draws people to her. Once you get to know her, you can’t not like her. Her personality is catching and it is a blessed disease to be stricken with.

She’s also someone several of us relentlessly tease who know her. Don’t think it’s because we’re rude. She actually loves it! (And I’m going to get whacked several times for this blog.) That’s something that makes her so awesome. She’s someone that you can joke with endlessly. Several decades from now, we’ll still be teasing Cruiser.

Cruiser is a joy to be around. She means the world to those of us who know her and if you do not know her, you are missing out. The world is a better place though because Cruiser is here and I look forward to seeing her in Heaven one day.

I was in a discussion last night with someone on the topic of homosexuality. This has been discussed some in our look at purity and the idea of abominations. However, the argument was brought up that this is something that is natural. In fact, the statement was made that 10% of animals are homosexual.

First off, I would like to ask that when you discuss this, you use the word homosexual. There is no reason to use any other word. It leads to a redefining of words. There’s also no need to use derogatory names. Call it simply what it is. Words are valuable and we should not let them be redefined.

However, let’s look at the argument. Let’s assume that the 10% claim is true. I really don’t, but for the sake of argument, I’ll pretend that it has been shown that 10% of all animals are homosexual.

So what?

Many animals eat their young also. Does that mean that it’s okay for Mommy to eat little Tommy? We should not be taking our cues from the animals. I have no reason to think animals understand the concept of morality. They understand shame and honor to an extent in that they know when they’ve disappointed their masters, but they don’t have an idea of violating some moral law.

The other claim was that this is a genetic condition. Okay. Let’s suppose it is. I don’t think it is at all, but for the sake of argument, we will assume that and then see what follows from that.

What follows is that it’s genetic. It does not follow that it is moral.

An is does not imply an ought. There is a likelihood that a tendency to alcoholism could be genetic. Does that mean that there is moral justification for getting drunk and killing someone in a car accident or beating up your wife? Not at all. Our genes do not create our actions. We are still responsible. While some used to say “The devil made me do it,” today we try to say “DNA made me do it.” It just doesn’t work.

My favorite response to this is to say “Well okay, I was born with a tendency to bash homosexuals. I hope you’ll accept that.” No one would. (I also don’t think it’s proper to bash homosexuals for the record.) Because you are born a certain way does not mean you are to act that way. We are to rise above our genes unlike the animals.

Let’s also be merciful here. There are some in the church who do struggle with homosexual tendencies. We do need to show the love of Christ to them and realize that change really is possible. This is one reason the church needs to teach sexuality as it really is.

The final argument though is a simple one. Look in a mirror. The human body is just not designed for homosexuality. Sexuality cannot bring about its ultimate purpose in homosexuality, and that is the producing of children.  Now some couples that are heterosexual are sterile. That is the loss of function by accident though and not by nature. Homosexual unions do not reproduce by nature and that makes all the difference in the world.

The next time someone gives you the “It’s only natural” argument, remember the truth. An is does not imply an ought.

Last night, I stayed up late to call a friend of mine in another timezone right at midnight so I could be the first to wish him a happy birthday. Indeed, I was. As I went to sleep that night, I thought about what a good friend he is. I thought that I had done an honor thread with Rodney, so why not to my friend Dave?

Now I can easily imagine some JWs getting upset at this point. I am honoring a pagan idea of a birthday condemned in the Bible (Which it isn’t) and I am honoring a man instead of honoring God. Now if they want to tell me that I am giving honor to a man then I have one thing to say.

Yeah…..And?

The Bible does say to give honor where honor is due by telling us some people we should honor such as those in authority. I choose to say honor friends also. Friends are people that you choose. You are born with family and you have to accept them as such. Indeed, we would probably not are particularly for the people in our family if we were not related to them.

So I shall honor my friend now and when other friends have birthdays coming up, I shall honor them as well. (Provided they let me know about it.)

My friend, I remember out first meeting. You saw me posting in a thread and sent me a compliment. I was stunned. I didn’t know who you were at the time, but more and more, I saw you posting and I was liking what I saw. However, I only knew you through a computer screen at that time.

We arranged a good place to meet at though when you passed through my area and we did and I saw a guy very much like me. I remember your mother was there and I showed you both my place. We then went out to my favorite pizzeria that I insisted you had to experience while in town.

We talked about so many topics in theology and apologetics that night. I remember especially our discussion on the Problem of Evil and discussing the idea of the God who is there, taken from Francis Schaeffer. I rarely have such enjoyable dinner conversations. We then exchanged phone numbers and since we have the same carrier, we can call each other for free all we want.

Our next meeting though definitely was in Atlanta at a convention we were both a part of and we were both roommates. I remember something happened there that I really needed a friend to talk to. I was particularly frightened at one point. You weren’t there physically, but I called you up and you were my friend when I really needed it. I don’t know how I would have handled it without you.

We did get to room together. I remember we’d stay up late discussing apologetics and Final Fantasy. Who would have thought those two went together so well? You’ve even said that if we room together at Seminary, we’d just stay up all night discussing Final Fantasy and apologetics.

I’m still wondering what the downside is.

Today, I’m pleased to call you my friend. You’ve been an encourager when I’ve needed one. (Among many other friends of course.) You’ve been someone I can discuss things with freely and have seen me at the gloomiest moments of my melancholy personality. I’m pleased to call you friend.

I see what you’re reading and it really pleases me. You’re always so encouraging of me and so many times, I just don’t see what you see, but I do know when I see you, I see a true friend and one I don’t intend to let go of. Wherever my path takes me in the future, I pray it keeps me in touch with you.

To you, one of my many true friends, I wish you a Happy Birthday. May God bless you as you have been a blessing to me.

Another passage that I find skeptics like to use is the command in Deut. 21:18-21. In this, we are told that if the parents have a child who is disobedient, then they are simply to take him to the elders and have the kid stoned to death. It seems a bit odd. Little Dave ignores curfew one night and he gets stoned. Right?

Not at all. This is the point that the skeptic always misses out on. There will always be discipline involved. The writer of Hebrews knew this when he said that all of us received discipline from our fathers when we were younger. The writer of Proverbs knew this when he talked about how to raise up a son.

For one thing, this son is hardly a small child. He is noted as being a drunkard and a glutton. Now some younger kids today can be overweight. How many of them though are drunkards? You didn’t have fat six year-olds wandering around Israel in ancient days with a hangover. This son was most likely old enough to know right from wrong.

Also, this would definitely be a last resort thing. Why? In our world, when we were growing up, most of us did not give back much to the family financially. In fact, most of us took. In the ancient world, a child was another hand in a world that relied largely on manual labor whatever the type may be. Consider a family of farmers as a parallel.

The family would not want to lose an extra hand around the house. That was income that was being brought in to help the family survive. Any loss of someone in the family led to a huge loss in incoming capital for those left behind. This is especially important in an age where you couldn’t just walk down the street to the grocery store.

Also, let’s remember that this was a very family-oriented society. A family out of bala morally would be a downfall to the whole community. While we may think the punishment of Achan is bizarre today, to the ancient worldview, it made sense. The community was responsible for itself. The same applies to the 42 youths and the bears with Elisha.

Finally, this wasn’t just a one-time thing. This was a lifelong thing. The kid was not just misbehaving once. His whole lifestyle was disregard to the authority of his parents and then ultimately, disregard for God.

Thus, the skeptic merely has an emotional appeal. Rest assured, if you see someone using this argument and making it sound like little Timmy gets killed for not cleaning his room, they don’t know what they’re talking about.

I’ve said that in looking at Leviticus, one main thing I wanted to touch on was the sexual aspect and that especially in dealing with, no doubt, one of the most controversial issues in the book of Leviticus in today’s world. I, of course, am speaking about the blanket condemnation of homosexuality.

The argument is often that homosexuality is called an abomination, but so is something like eating shellfish. I can assure you readers that I have seen this line of argumentation several times be it on an internet chat program or in something like letters to the editor in the newspaper.

Let us look at the relevant texts. In Leviticus 18:22 we read “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.” (That’s in the NIV, for those who think for some odd reason that the NIV is light on homosexuality.) In 20:13, it reads “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.  This latter one is the only one that mentions a death penalty.

Now let’s notice something. The punishment then will not be the same everytime. In this case, if you do this abomination, you die. That’s it. Now why would Moses need to add that caveat? Only one reason. This was one you were to die for unlike all the other cases where you would simply be “unclean.”

In Leviticus 11, the word shows up 8 times. It refers to unclean animals. Abomination in the Bible refers to something that is detestable. Genesis 43:32 and 46:34 both have detestable things in the eyes of the Egyptians mentioned. Exodus 8:26 has the same thing. The same meaning applies. These were things to be detested. As shepherds were detested by the Egyptians, so these unclean animals were to be detested by the Jews. Leviticus 7:18 speaks of a sacrifice’s flesh being eaten on the third day as a detestable act. (resurrection parallel anyone?)

The only punishment listed in Leviticus 7 for touching something unclean was being cut off. That would mean exile. It could be temporary or permanent. More than likely, it was temporary. The offense was serious, but it was not of the kind that would merit the death penalty. It is though in Leviticus 20.

Now I hear some of you making some objections. “Ah yes! But that is not mentioned in Leviticus 18!

If that’s you, go to the end of the chapter. All of these things that the Lord prescribes death for are the practices that were done by the people beforehand in the land and that’s why they’re being removed from the land for. Notice it is not for eating shellfish or for eating pigs. It is for these sinful practices.

Why would they be removed for these? Because they should have known better. This is the law written on their hearts as Romans 2 says. The Gentiles were never under a decree not to eat certain animals. They were under a decree though to keep God’s moral law. God’s not a moral relativist. He doesn’t say the moral law is different for each culture. He’s clear.

And what was the punishment Israel brought on them? It was death. They died for those sins. When the prophets later would prophecy to other nations like many of them did, they would condemn these same practices as they would in Judah and Israel.  Notice that Israel and Judah both got taken from the land as well. The only reason they didn’t die entirely is that they were God’s chosen people and he had a promise to them, but they were cut off for 70 years and when they came back, they learned their lesson. (This is why Jesus is silent on homosexuality. All homosexuals would be dead in Israel.)

Some of you might also be looking at sacrifices to Molech and saying “All of this only applies to temple cultic practice then.” Really? Then I suppose the same applies to sex with animals. (I shudder though at thinking there are some people today who will think that is okay.) No. These were all sins for everyone no matter who did them.

Of course, some of you can simply say “That was their view, and that was wrong.” That is a more honest view and over time, that will be looked at. For now though, while we can say the author was wrong, let us be clear on one thing. The author meant to convey a message. We must have the proper interpretation and then decide.

Of course, my readers know that I will agree. This is an abomination. This is where we are headed though, and it’s time we learned these arguments so we can deal with them.

When we start thinking about the book of Leviticus, one aspect that throws people off is the idea of purity. To us, what they did seems so outdated and nonsensical. You have to wash your clothes so much for that? You must go and bathe because you did this? Why couldn’t they be reasonable like us?

Yet as David DeSilva has pointed out in “Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity,” are we much better? Most of our reasons are for hygiene today, but we emphasize purity. We like ourselves to be clean. Especially obsessive-compulsive types like myself who wash our hands at every little thing.

Consider our fixations in other areas. Have you not seen someone go totally berserk because of a dent on their car? Usually, it’s so tiny that you can’t even notice it, but several people will spend hundreds of dollars to get that dent taken care of. That dent tarnishes a totally pure image they want.

The Jews back then believed in purity as well and everything was to remind them of purity because everything was to reflect the purity of YHWH. YHWH had not mixing in himself. He was total in all that he was (And I would say is of course). This is the reason that no hybrids were allowed and no mixed clothing.

To us, it might sound weird, but in a Jewish mindset, it does make perfect sense. You don’t where clothes that are combinations of parts because they are not pure. They are mixed. Since YHWH is pure, you have to wear that which is pure as well. You also do not have hybrids as they are mixed. Only purities are allowed.

Anthropology has come to some of the same conclusions with regards to animals. A theory is around that the animals were divided into the spheres of air, water, and earth. An animal had to be totally in one in order to be clean. An eel would not count for it does not have the fishlike body and is more earthy. It is a mixture of water and earth.

This is also found in moral purity especially in the sexual code. The most intimate part of the person’s life was to reflect that holiness. Indeed, it should be that which reflects it the most one could argue. If you could not be holy with your very sexual nature, how could you be holy in other areas?

The Day of Atonement would remind the people of this. The High Priest had to be sure he was absolutely holy before entering the Most Holy Place as he did once a year to make atonement. He had bells on and a rope around his foot as well so that they would know he was moving by the sound of the bells. If the ringing stopped, he was unholy in some way and they had to drag him out with the rope as he would have been struck dead.

What was the point of that day? It was to remove sins. This was the most important way to be pure and the reason for many sacrifices. The Israelites were to be holy and what kept them from being truly holy was their sins. They had to be separated from their sins and their lifestyle was to remind them of that.

With this in mind, we can begin soon looking deeper into the book of Leviticus while reminding ourselves that YHWH required purity.

I wrote yesterday about the past. Today, I am going to write about the future and what it holds. I am reminded of the words of my personal hero Ravi Zacharias here in saying “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” I do not consider myself one with divine insight, but one just watching shapes and trends and making a reasonable guess.

I believe the great issue facing our time is relativism and more specifically moral relativism. I believe firmly that if moral relativism is accepted, western civilization will not make it.  I also believe that too many are falling at this point and that this is the main philosophy of ethics taught in our schools. (Values clarification anyone?)

I see this based on the emphasis we have first off on tolerance today. Somehow, tolerance has become the key virtue, yet those who preach it the most are the ones that are the least “tolerant” in their sense of the word to those who disagree. Tolerance has made it where you are not allowed to take a stand for anything.

Now to be sure, we do believe in tolerance as Christians in that we think that we can value the person while disagreeing with them. We tolerate the person but not the false idea. I do believe also that we should hold that everyone has a right to hold certain beliefs in this country.

For instance, if someone wants to hold a rally for abortion rights, go ahead and let them hold it. In fact, I think this is the time for Christians to be in the public square. The best way to deal with them in this case I believe would be in the intellectual realm. We should be willing to face them in debate. This is the way the legal system is designed to work.

In this though, we cannot allow ourselves to be shamed. We cannot be embarrassed to speak out. If Christians will work together and take a stand in the world and go to the polls and act on their Christian beliefs, I believe we could see some major change. The problem is not that there are a lack of Christians. The problem is that we have a lack of Christian action.

The second piece of evidence is the moral decline we have. There are far too many people living together before marriage. There are far too many people that are watching something just to see blood and violence. The porn industry is a major selling industry today. Abortion is on the rise. Teen suicide is a problem in our high schools and high school shootings are showing the worst of it.

One sign though I point to in this is the homosexual movement. This movement is a very very very small minority, yet they’ve been allowed to gain more power than they should have. It has been said that when the homosexuals came out of the closet, they pushed the Christians into it and we’ve been hiding ever since. I think there’s some truth to that.

This is a major threat due to the attack the homosexual movement is making on marriage which is the foundation of the family. The family is the building block of society. Destroy the family and the society falls. We’re already destroying much of the society through abortion.

The way to allow this will be to dispense with morality. It is what is holding us back from America’s favorite god today of sex. We will sacrifice morality for pleasure thinking that morality is what is keeping us from pleasure. Were the ancients here, they would say morality is the way to pleasure.

This is why when talking to a ministry friend of mine yesterday that I said we needed to study and be ready to defend the book of Leviticus. When the homosexual movement wants to reinterpret a book of Scripture first, it is Leviticus. How many people will say “Well, Leviticus does say homosexuality is an abomination, but it also says that about eating shellfish!” or “This was only for the cultic practices involved.”

Thus, I could begin looking closer at this book for us. I do believe though that this is essential as the battle will hit the church as it already is. More and more churches are bending at this point. This is a battle we cannot afford to lose. Moral relativism is coming. Now is the time to fight it.

I have had a thought in my mind lately on where our nation is heading. I am quite concerned with the future, but I believe the place to begin is not with looking at the future. The place to begin is not even where we are at. The place to begin is quite simply, at the beginning, and we must do so by learning our past.

I was talking to someone today about the movie 300. I never saw this movie, but he was with some others and he was saying, “It was a good movie, but I didn’t like the ending.” Of course, I told him that they had no way of changing the ending. After all, we have no right to rewrite history.”

At that point, a lady that was with him said, “You mean that happened?” This is one of the moments where I get disgusted. I remember having read about the battle before the movie ever came to the theaters and thinking, “Yeah. I read about that taking place.” Unfortunately, while it disgusts me, I can sadly easily understand it.

We live in a day and an age where history is not known. I have with me copies of Plutarch, Josephus, and Tacitus. I have read works on church history and of course, there are the Scriptures which are the history of the Jewish people. However, our culture today does not know about most of these sources. We know about who is dating who in Hollywood and what’s going on in our favorite soap operas, but we are ignorant of what happened in the past.

It has been said that our culture today knows more about the past 60 hours than the past 60 centuries. We will frequently watch the news or read the newspapers and know everything about the present time, but we have no connection with the time in the past today. Is it any shock that the past consists of people with ancient worldviews who were superstitious?

This is one downfall of our modern world. We are cutting off the past and trying to form our own identity apart from our heritage. Tradition is an accursed word. That means we get rid of the moral ideas and the religious ideas as well. Now naturally, some ideas do need to change. However, this is not because they are old ideas. This is because they are false ones. We do not reject geocentricism because it is older. We reject it because it is false.

The great danger is that our culture has no root and thus, we will simply not survive. Without knowing the past, we are unprepared to face the challenges of today. If you want to understand what is happening in the Middle East, you have to understand what has happened in the history of Muslims and Jews. People who want to handle this situation while divorcing it from its past will only fail.

What is the solution? We need to study history. We need to know about the great cultures of the past and what they did and how they have shaped us. It makes a difference to know why a war was fought and what the thinking was behind X movement. It is essential that we simply not disregard something because it is ancient or what we so naively call “superstitious.”

Unfortunately, our school system doesn’t really do it for us. We must do it ourselves. Go to the bookstore. Buy books on ancient history. If you have another area of interest, study it in history. You can study the history of philosophy or the history of science or economics or politics for instance.

Be assured though that you know about your time in relation to the past. We are not people floating on an island in the sea of time. We have a heritage and we need to learn from it.

I’ve been thinking still about that sermon last night. There is something beneficial in a sermon I don’t agree with in that it inspires me to look closer at an issue so I can say why I don’t. Of course, if I turn out to be wrong, I will change my mind, but in this case, that hasn’t happened yet.

I was discussing this with some friends after writing the blog last night. I bemoan the fact that our churches just don’t really spend enough time on biblical exegesis. When this sermon was going on, I went through the Bible and did some minor exegesis of the text. Granted, my resources were limited as I had to rely on my memory and I had no portable concordance or Strong’s with me. Still, there is some simple exegesis anyone can do.

I find that whenever I do such things, I enjoy them. It makes me reopen my eyes again to what Scripture really is. It’s a gold mine of information and truth. The texts that are written can often be seen as arguments to state a position and lead someone to believe something. Go read the NT and find where they quote the OT. There’s a reason they did that. It supports an argument.

One aspect of studying that will be to become familiar with the context of the ancients. For instance, at the request of a friend, I am now reading the Brothers Karamazov. Can I understand the basic concepts behind the story and enjoy it? Yes I can. However, my enjoyment would no doubt be increased if I studied Russian culture and knew the names better and the events and the currency and customs of the time period.

The same applies for Scripture. The modern concept of hearing the voice of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit as taught today I just do not find in Scripture. It has become too easy for us to take our modern views and read them back into the Scripture. This has led us down the path of individualism though where each of us become islands unto ourselves. We neglect the way of wisdom when we somehow think it’s biblical for God to do our thinking for us.

What is the way of wisdom then? It is the path laid down in Proverbs that begins with the Fear of the Lord. Wisdom thus begins in just not knowing stuff but living stuff. The truly wise person will also be a moral person. Woe to our intellectuals today who may know a lot of things, but do not know how to live. Read Socrates. This was his main area of interest. He wanted to discuss ethics and living the right life.

This will mean studying the ideas and how we are to live them. In our age of individualism though, I believe we neglect a great source of wisdom as well. Other people. When do we sit down with others and discuss ideas? Proverbs 27:17 tells us that as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

Do we do that? Do we sit down and discuss with each other and bounce our ideas off? Maybe some conclusions will be wrong, but at least we’ll be learning more about how to think. Of course, if we believe God is telling us what the text means, then we won’t study it. If we believe that the preacher is saying what God put on his heart, then we will treat it as infallable.

No. We need to go back to the text. We need to get away from subjective experiences. Experiences are fine and great, but they are not interpreters of Scripture. We should use Scripture to understand our experiences and interpret them. We should not use experiences to understand and interpret Scripture.

I make the call then. Return to the way of wisdom. Return to seeking truth with all your heart. Realize your feelings are temporary and ebb and flow, but truth is eternal. Fear God and keep his commandments. Follow that seeking and it will lead you to Christ who is the wisdom of God and to be more conformed to his image.