“You Cannot Legislate Morality!”

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The CEO of a major American corporation was forced to resign after admitting to a sexual affair with a female subordinate (Merle, 2005).
 The incident triggered the oft’-debated ethical question: “Should one’s personal behavior in moral matters have any bearing on one’s position in public life?” Conventional wisdom now says, “no.”

 You’ve heard the claims—over and over again ad nauseam: “What a person does on his own time is none of the company’s business.” “Public life and private life are separate issues.” “After all, you cannot legislate morality and personal behavior.”

From the president of the United States and the CEO of a large corporation to the public school teacher, Americans in large numbers have swallowed the baseless and ludicrous assertion that personal conduct and moral choices have no bearing on one’s employment position and credibility. Character, integrity, and ethical behavior increasingly have been detached from job performance as people compartmentalize their lives into separate and distinct spheres.

But such ethical schizophrenia is irrational, nonsensical, and destructive to the fabric of society. When a person manifests immorality in one aspect of his life, he demonstrates a character flaw that has become a part of his being.

 This circumstance must inevitably and naturally permeate a person’s character. If he is willing to lie in his private life, logically his propensity for lying can know no boundaries. The person who becomes comfortable with lying in one area of his life will eventually feel comfortable lying in other areas as well.

Once a person sacrifices her integrity by embracing one illicit behavior (e.g., lying), she instantaneously opens herself up to embracing additional illicit behaviors (e.g., stealing, cheating). If a man cannot be trusted with your wife, why would you trust him with your money or your business?

God’s Word is the only reliable guide for human behavior (Psalm 119). In the Bible, God has given rules for the regulation of human behavior. Only He is in a position to establish the parameters of proper behavior.

Without law, humans would have no guidance and no framework for assessing their actions. They would be free to conduct themselves in any manner whatsoever. One person may choose to murder while another may choose not to murder. There would be no ultimate difference between those two choices—no objective basis upon which to assign any ethical or moral significance.

 The person who engages in immoral behavior would be open to being immoral in any and every area of his or her life. Only incidental circumstances would decide when and where the immorality manifested itself. If a CEO would sacrifice his sexual integrity, given the right circumstances, he would be willing to sacrifice his financial integrity as well.

Human civilization is, in fact, grounded and dependent on the fundamental principle that human behavior can and must be regulated. Laws, by definition, regulate human behavior! Why do we have traffic laws? Why do we require people to drive their automobiles on the correct side of the road, stop at red traffic lights, or yield to pedestrians in crosswalks?

 Weren’t we told that we could not legislate human behavior? Why do we have laws governing the food industry’s handling of food for human consumption? I thought we could not legislate human behavior? Why do we have laws that make murder, stealing, and perjury in court illegal—if human morality cannot be legislated? The fact of the matter is that human behavior can and must be governed. The very fabric and functioning of society depends on it!

Ultimately, morality must be based on the laws of God, with the understanding that one day all humans will stand before the Supreme Judge of the world Who will “render to each one according to his deeds” (Romans 2:6): “For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil (Ecclesiastes 12:14). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:10-11).

REFERENCES

Merle, Renae (2005), “Boeing CEO Resigns Over Affair with Subordinate,” Washington Post, Tuesday, March 8, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13173-2005Mar7.html.

---

Copyright ©  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Faith

When was “The Faith” Delivered?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Recently we received a very interesting question from one of our readers. It is noteworthy for two reasons. First, many of us have probably never heard the question. (I have been working for more than 20 years in Bible study and teaching of various types and had never heard it.) Second, the answer is extremely simple, but might not appear that obvious at the outset.

The question is, how could the book of Jude be a part of “the faith” (meaning the body of New Testament teaching recognized as “the faith”) if the book of Jude states that the faith “was once and for all delivered to the saints” (vs. 3)?

If Jude says “the faith” was “delivered” once and for all in the past, then how could his writing, being written after the fact, be part of “the faith”? Along those same lines, how could Peter state that God “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), if Peter was writing material after that statement was made that pertained to “life and godliness”?

The simple answer lies in the fact that when something is recorded is not necessarily when it is “delivered.” Throughout the first century, God inspired the apostles and various first century prophets to deliver “the faith” to the early church.

Much of that material, however, was preached long before it was written down. For instance, God inspired Peter and the apostles to preach the Gospel on the day of Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension into heaven.

That sermon was not recorded, however, until about 30 years later by the inspired writer Luke. Since that is the case, we understand that the material had been delivered to the church long before it was preserved in written form by the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts.

This fact is evident in the books of 2 Peter and Jude, the two books under discussion. Both authors made a special point to insist that they were reminding their audiences of material that was already out there and available.

 For instance, Peter stated, “I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know them, and are established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:12). Later in the book he stated, “Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder)” (2 Peter 3:1).

Jude made similar statements when he wrote, “But I want to remind you, though you once knew this” (vs. 5). And when he stated, “remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” These authors insist that they are reminding their readers of material that the readers had access to before they read these letters.

When we stop to consider the situation, this would have to be the case. Jesus explained that the Holy Spirit would help the apostles know what to say when they stood before rulers (Matthew 10:19).

 Yet we read of only a very few instances of such messages in Acts. Certainly it was the case that Matthew, Andrew, Thomas, and the other apostles preached inspired messages that we have no record of. In 1 Corinthians 14:31, we learn that certain people in the Corinthian church were prophets, but we do not have a record of their messages.

 The point is this: throughout the first century, the Holy Spirit was delivering “all things” (John 14:26), guiding the inspired writers into “all truth” (John 16:13), and making known “the faith” to the church in a number of ways. When we see it preserved by an inspired writer, that does not mean it had not been previously delivered in one form or another to the church prior to that.

---

Copyright  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Resurrection

Did Paul Make a Mistake Regarding the Resurrection?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Near the close of his first letter to the church at Thessalonica, the apostle Paul addressed the subject of Christ’s Second Coming. He indicated that “the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God” (4:16).

 The Christians in Thessalonica were not to be concerned with what would happen to Christians who had passed from this life prior to Jesus’ return. Departed Christians were not going to miss the Second Coming; God would take care of them. Paul noted that those “who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep” (vs. 15). “[T]he dead in Christ will rise first” (vs. 16).

Some have asked, however, if 1 Thessalonians 4:16 contradicts what Paul wrote just two verses previously where he indicated that “God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus” (vs. 14). How can those who will be the first to rise also be brought with Jesus? Did Paul make a blunder?

Skeptics have no proof of errancy on the part of the inspired Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:15; Galatians 1:12) in this passage or any other. There are at least two possible, logical, scriptural interpretations to 1 Thessalonians 4:14,16.

 First, it is very likely that verse 14 is not a reference to Jesus’ coming with those “who sleep in Jesus,” but rather an allusion to Christ taking the once-dead-but-now-resurrected saints “with Him” to be with God the Father forever.

Such an interpretation coincides with other references Paul made to Christ taking (or bringing) the saints before God. In his second letter to the church at Corinth, Paul wrote: “He who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will present us with you” (4:14, emp. added). What’s more, when the end comes, “He [Christ] delivers the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Corinthians 15:24, emp. added).

Thus, 1 Thessalonians 4:14 may simply mean that “the Christians who are to be resurrected as Christ was, will be acted upon by ‘God’ who will cause Christ to ‘bring’ these resurrected Christians ‘with Him,’ that is, with Christ” (Edwards, 2000).

Second, even if Paul was alluding to the same individuals in 1 Thessalonians 4:14 and 16, skeptics still would not be justified in asserting that the passages are contradictory. The fact is, the Bible indicates that when God’s faithful servants pass away (i.e., “fall asleep” in Jesus), their spirits are taken to “paradise” or “the bosom of Abraham” (Luke 23:43; 16:19-31). 

When Christ returns to raise the dead and judge the world, God will cause the dwellers of paradise to reunite with their bodies, which will then be raised and changed “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.... [T]he trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:52-53).

 Thus, 1 Thessalonians 4:14 may refer to the moment when “Jesus will bring the faithful departed with him when he comes back” (Morris, 1991, p. 140).

Regardless of which interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:14 is correct, both views are scriptural beliefs based upon other Bible passages (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22-24; Luke 23:43; 16:19-31; etc.) Also, either explanation dispels any notion of a contradiction.

REFERENCES

Edwards, Earl (2000), First, Second Thessalonians and Philippians Lecture Notes (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University).

Morris, Leon (1991), The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

---

Copyright ©  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Proof

"Proof" that Does Not Prove

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The law of rationality insists that a person should accept only those propositions and ideas for which there is adequate evidence. This law of thought is so general and ubiquitous in its application that few people even realize they actually use it on a regular basis.

For instance, if a man shows up at his office late for work with a torn shirt and a black eye, claiming that he was attacked by killer fairies from Sherwood Forest, the man’s boss does not have to think very long before reprimanding the tardy employee.

 On the other hand, if an employee shows up claiming to have been in a car accident, and he bolsters his claim with the evidence of a dent in his car and a police-written ticket verifying that an automobile accident occurred, then the boss most likely would believe the employee. We see, then, that the law of rationality is used by most people on a regular basis.

Sometimes, however, a certain idea or philosophy will present itself that does not have the adequate, verifiable evidence necessary to demand acceptance. Because of this lack of evidence, the proponents of this idea appeal to certain “proofs” that, on the surface, seem to be legitimate, but in reality are not evidence at all.

For example, suppose that a salesman is selling medallions that are supposed to keep elephants away from the owner of such a medallion. And suppose that the salesman happens to be selling these amazing contraptions to the citizens of Alaska.

When one suspicious customer asks if the medallions really work, the salesman replies, “Sure they work, you don’t see an elephant within 100 miles of here, do you?” Looking at the salesman’s statement, it is easy to see that something is amiss, but exactly what is it? In short, the salesman has committed a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance).

The argument from ignorance basically says, “You cannot prove that my elephant medallions are not the reason why there are no elephants here.” The essence of this fallacy is the claim that a person accepts a proposition because it cannot be proven untrue.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it does not present any positive proof, therefore, in reality, it presents no proof (see Geisler and Brooks, 1990, pp. 95-96). The above example is just one of a plethora of logical fallacies—i.e., appeals to as proof that, in reality, offer no proof at all.

The primary logical fallacy with which the remainder of this article will deal is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the “authorities” accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because “an authority” says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion (Geisler and Brooks, pp. 98-99).

One classic biblical example of a faulty appeal to authority is found in John 7. In verse 32, Jesus had defied the Jewish leaders to such an extent that they commissioned officers to take Him by force. The officers, however, after listening to Jesus teach boldly, returned to the chief priests and Pharisees without apprehending Jesus. When asked why they did not arrest Jesus, the officers stated: “No man ever spoke like this Man!” They were, in essence, making the argument that Jesus should not be arrested because He spoke things that no ordinary man could have known or spoken.

Yet, instead of dealing with the actual evidence of the case (i.e., the things Jesus actually said), the Pharisees made a false appeal to authority when they said, “Are you also deceived? Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed” (vss. 47-49).

 Notice that the Pharisees did not expound on the parts of the law that Jesus allegedly was breaking, nor did they offer any rebuttal to Christ’s statements. Instead, they “proved” their argument by suggesting, “We know more than you and this ignorant crowd, therefore you should believe what we tell you, even without proper evidence.” After being made aware of the logical fallacy of an appeal to false authority, it is evident that these Jewish leaders were guilty of offering “proof ” that proved nothing.

Even today, the false appeal to authority is a common ploy used to bolster ideas or conclusions that lack sufficient evidence. This logical fallacy finds a welcome seat at the table of many books and papers that purport to “prove” the theory of organic evolution. The following sampling of statements goes a long way toward showing how this appeal to authority (without supporting evidence) is used in evolutionary circles.

• Richard Dawkins wrote: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (1989, p. 34, parenthetical item in orig.).
• B.B. Vance and D.F. Miller quipped: “All reputable biologists have agreed that evolution of life on earth is an established fact” (1958, p. 520, emp. added).
• Richard Goldschmidt declared: “Evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by all those entitled to a judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed” (1952, p. 84, emp. added).

As one can see, statements that purport to show what all “reputable” biologists believe, or what all those “entitled to a judgment” say, are clearly designed to appeal to a sense of intellectual authority for which supporting evidence is not deemed necessary. In fact, J. Savage is on record as stating, “No serious biologist today doubts the fact of evolution....

The fact of evolution is amply clear. We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges” (1965, preface, emp. added).

Of course, showing that the “intellectually” elite sometimes use the logical fallacy of appealing to false authority in their attempt to prove evolution, does not disprove the theory of evolution. It does, however, manifest the fact that this “proof ” of the theory frequently is offered instead of actual evidence.

Could it be that sufficient, verifiable evidence does not exist to prove rationally the theory of organic evolution. H.S. Lipson, an evolutionist himself, wrote: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it” (1980, p. 138).

 If many of today’s scientists maintain a belief in the theory of evolution because they have been taught that “serious,” “reputable,” educated scientists believe in evolution, is it not time to dismiss this false appeal to authority and go in search of actual evidence? If this ever happened on a grand scale, I believe that the bulk of scientists, like the officers of the Pharisees, would become increasingly skeptical of the establishment’s pseudo-evidence. In fact, with enough honesty and diligence, I believe they inevitably would arrive at creationism as presented in the Bible, declaring that, “No book ever spoke like this one.”

REFERENCES

Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review” (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint), The New York Times, April 9, section 7, p. 34.

Geisler, Norman L. and Ronald M. Brooks (1990), Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Goldschmidt, Richard (1952), American Scientist, 49:84.

Lipson, H.S. (1980), “A Physicist Looks at Evolution” Physics Bulletin, 31:138, May.

Savage, J. (1965), Evolution (New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston).

Vance, B.B. and D.F. Miller (1958), Biology for You, (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott).

---

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Mary

Mary—Mother of God?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ, generated a flurry of interest and discussion regarding the Christian religion. Since Mel declares himself to be a Catholic, the movie naturally elicited a consideration of the Catholic perspective on various aspects of the life of Christ on Earth. 

One unique feature of Catholicism is the role and status assigned to Mary. While many Catholics will “hedge” when in private conversation about the veneration given to Mary, the official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are forthright and unreserved in declaring her to be the “mother of God,” and in sanctioning the offering of worship to her, and assigning to her an intercessory role.

 Consider the following authoritative decrees of the Vatican II Council:

Mary was involved in the mysteries of Christ. As the most holy Mother of God she was, after her Son, exalted by divine grace above all angels and men. Hence the Church appropriately honors her with special reverence. Indeed, from most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been venerated under the title of “God-bearer.” In all perils and needs, the faithful have fled prayerfully to her protection…. This most holy Synod…charges that practices and exercises of devotion toward her be treasured as recommended by the teaching authority of the Church in the course of centuries, and that those decrees issued in earlier times regarding the veneration of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints, be religiously observed…. Let the entire body of the faithful pour forth persevering prayer to the Mother of God and Mother of men. Let them implore that she who aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers may now, exalted as she is in heaven above all the saints and angels, intercede with her Son in the fellowship of all the saints (Abbott, 1966, pp. 94-96, emp. added).

Of course, rejecting the concept of abiding strictly by the Bible (sola scriptura), the Catholic Church has maintained for centuries that God’s Word is transmitted through (in addition to the Bible) the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, i.e., through the papacy and supporting church authorities. But for those who remain unconvinced of the right of post-apostolic men to speak by inspiration, the Bible continues to be the only rule of faith and practice—the sole receptacle for God’s Word since the close of the first century A.D.

The Bible is abundantly clear on the role of Mary in the divine scheme of things. The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary ascended into heaven. Nor does the Bible ever use the expression “mother of God.” The expression, in fact, carries with it misleading baggage. It leaves the impression that Mary somehow is being credited with originating Jesus or bringing Him into existence—ludicrous notions at best (cf. John 1:1; Colossians 1:16-17).

 A fair representation of Scripture would recognize the need to provide clarification by using different wording (e.g., Mary was the mother of Jesus in His incarnate form). In reality, Mary’s body merely served as a host. Matthew worded it this way: “[T]hat which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20). 

Someone has gotten “way off track” by overemphasizing the role of Mary—thus giving rise to Mariolatry (the worship of Mary) among Catholics. Using the expression “mother of God” is, therefore, an example of decontextualization. The meaning of the phrase “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43) has been greatly expanded, thereby causing the expression to convey more meaning than the Holy Spirit intended.

The Bible likewise does not give Mary any special status above others. It is acknowledged that she was selected to be the female through whom the Holy Spirit implanted the seed that brought forth the Lord (Luke 1:26-38). It is true that Mary’s relative, Elizabeth, referred to her as “blessed” (Luke 1:42). And it is true that Mary, herself, felt that “henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). But notice that nothing is attributed to Mary that is not attributed to many, many other followers of God in Bible history. Many people, in fact, have been “blessed.”

To “bless” in Bible jargon simply means to wish intended good, favor, and well-being upon the recipient (cf. Gray, 1939, 1:487). For example, consider how Melchizedek, king of Salem, extolled Abram: “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand” (Genesis 14:19-20). 

Rebekah was similarly blessed: “And they blessed Rebekah and said to her: ‘Our sister, may you become the mother of thousands of ten thousands; and may your descendants possess the gates of those who hate them’ ” (Genesis 24:60; cf. vs. 31). Abimelech announced to Isaac: “You are now the blessed of the Lord” (Genesis 26:29). The entire nation of Israel was pronounced blessed: “You shall be blessed above all peoples; there shall not be a male or female barren among you or among your livestock” (Deuteronomy 7:14). Moses directed multiple assurances of blessedness toward the Israelites (Deuteronomy 28:1-8).

In fact, the Bible pronounces as “blessed” all people who follow Jesus: “Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him” (Psalm 2:12). Many people in Bible history were found in the “favor” of God (e.g., 1 Samuel 2:26; Proverbs 12:2). Nowhere does the Bible even hint at the notion of Mariolatry. When on the cross, Jesus said to John: “Behold your mother!” (John 19:27), He certainly was not calling for the veneration of Mary! He was merely assigning to John the responsibility of caring for His mother. Mary’s husband, Joseph, was undoubtedly deceased.

 If veneration of Mary is necessitated by this statement of Jesus, then the immediately preceding statement directed to Mary pertaining to John (“Woman, behold your son!”—John 19:26) would necessitate the veneration of John! Likewise, the notion of Mary’s “perpetual virginity” is a contradiction of Bible teaching, since she and her husband, Joseph, had several children after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 12:46; 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). The New Testament is completely silent on these doctrines (Mariolatry, assumption into heaven, perpetual virginity) that have evolved within Catholicism long after the first century.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966), The Documents of Vatican II (New York, NY: America Press).

Gray, James M. (1939), “Bless,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1974 reprint.

---

Copyright ©  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.