Keeping the Rules

How many rules do we need? There are those who seem to feel that those who live with the most rules are the most spiritual. But there are others who criticize everyone who has more rules then they do (however many or few that may be) as a legalist. What is the right answer? Now we are not saved by keeping the rules (Romans 3:19,20; Galatians 2:21; Titus 3:5,6), but by faith in Christ (Romans 4:4,5; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 3:16-18). Therefore, our motivation for obedience is love of God for what He has done for us (1 John 4:19; 2 Corinthians 5:14,15; Romans 12:1,2). Further, we are unable to keep the rules on our own (John 15:5; Romans 7:18; 8:8), but only through God's working in us (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29). But we are still left with the question of more rules versus fewer rules.

The Biblical emphasis does not seem to be on more or fewer rules, but on the right rules (Deuteronomy  4:2; Revelation 22:18,19; Proverbs 30:5,6). While we are warned against thinking it is all right simply to ignore God's standards (Galatians 5:13; Romans 6:15-23; Matthew 5:17-20), we are also warned against inventing new rules to try to show we are more holy than others who do not have such rules (Colossians 2:20-23; Matthew 15:1-9; Luke 14:1-6). Underlying this is an attitude of trying to please God by doing what He actually wants us to do. Not trying to cut corners and see what we can get away with or showing that we are better than others by having more rules then they do.

Also, the emphasis in Scripture is not on a checklist of external rules, but on principles and the attitude of the heart (Matthew 15:10-20; 5:21-48; John 4:20-24), the ultimate principle being that of love (Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8). Now there are commands that are cut-and-dried: this is precisely what God wants, and if you do not do it you are wrong.  But there are other cases where we need to apply the broad principles of Scripture to the specific situation. Far from releasing us to do whatever we want, we need to deal with the complicated issues of considering our weaknesses (1 Corinthians 10:12,13; 2 Timothy 2:22; 1 Timothy 6:11) and the effects our behavior might have on others (Romans 14:13-23; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9). This can lead to someone avoiding things that they consider acceptable for others. However, we should not use these principles to produce categorical rules to be imposed on others. Part of the problem is we are much more comfortable with black-and-white rules. They make it easier to judge ourselves and others. But we need to be black-and-white where God is black-and-white and to allow room for judgment where this is required. We need people who can think things through for themselves, rather then just blindly follow a rulebook.

But He Was Sincere

One common claim is that it does not matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. But does this make sense? If I jump off a cliff and sincerely believe I will not fall, I will still fall. If I know nothing about mechanics, but sincerely believe I can fix a car, will it necessarily work when I am done? Will an atomic bomb not work if I sincerely believe it will not? In the physical world, we realize that certain things are correct and other things are not and that it is possible to be sincerely wrong.

But what about the world of morality? If one man kills another, are we more likely to excuse him if he sincerely wanted to kill that man? Are we not more likely to see it as a mitigating circumstance if it was unintentional or done on the spur of the moment while he did not intend to do it beforehand? If a driver hits a pedestrian, are we mollified if we learn he sincerely meant to hit that pedestrian? Adolf Hitler seems to have been a very sincere individual; does that justify his actions?

Why, then, are we willing to take this idea, which makes no sense in any other situation and apply it to the worship of God? It is possible to imagine a God who does not care it you worship Him through chastity and respect for life or cult prostitution and the sacrifice of infants, but this does not seem obvious. It is conceivable to picture a God who does not care if you regard Him as perfectly holy and all powerful or as a hen-pecked husband who goes around seducing young women, but it does not appear inevitable this should be true. Certainly, this is not the God of the Bible (Isaiah 43:10,11; John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Also, such a God would be impossible to obey because anything you did could be construed as obedience to Him. How would you decide what to choose? And how would you sincerely believe this was the right thing if it could just as well be something else? This, when followed consistently, must lead to insincerity, because how can you be sincere about being and doing something if you think another position, sincerely held, would be just as good.  For what do we mean by sincerity if it does not mean believing that this particular view is true as opposed to some other view? The whole thing becomes a mind game that ends up justifying everyone except the person who holds it. Therefore, this viewpoint refutes itself.

All We Need Is Love?

There are those who would argue that the only moral standard is love. This viewpoint is particularly put forth by those who hold to situation ethics, but has since spread beyond it. The only standard of right and wrong is to do the loving thing in the situation. How does this fit in with Scripture?

There are  passages that state love is the sum of all the commandments of the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:13,14). The question then comes: What is love? Now to  love is to sacrifice oneself for the good of another (1 John 4:8-10; John 15:13; Romans 5:6-8). With this Dr. Fletcher, the founder of situation ethics, agrees, as would others who hold his opinions. But the question that then must be asked is: What is good?  In many cases I suspect his answer is the same as that of utilitarianism, which is that good is what gives the largest amount of pleasure. It is here Scripture and this viewpoint part company. In Scripture there is an absolute standard of good that supersedes our personal desires (Titus 3:3; James 1:14,15; 1 Peter 1:14). (This does not mean that all human desires are wrong, merely that they are not to be made the standard.) This disagreement arises from conflicting ideas about human nature. The Scriptures say that we, as human beings, are in rebellion against God, and our desires in many cases are the result of that rebellion (Romans 3:23; Jeremiah 17:9; Isaiah 64:6). While the modern idea is that people are basically good and therefore their desires are good unless they conflict with someone else's desires (or at least, who am I to question them). These lead to fundamentally different concepts of love.

The Biblical concept of love leads to a concept of commitment and responsibility and living according to principle. The modern cultural idea of love is a vague sentimental feeling that would not dream of questioning anyone or anything, except in the most extreme cases. A good illustration of this contrast is in the area of sexual morality. The Biblical standard in this area is one of lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, with responsibility being taken for the children produced by the union. The modern idea in this area is of following your impulses wherever they lead you, and that as long as what happens is between consenting adults it is okay, and that the children, if any, just have to learn to live with this. These are two totally different concepts of love, and if one is legitimate, the other is not. So when someone says the ultimate moral principle is love, you need to ask what they mean by love.

The End of the World

I was originally not going to say anything on this subject, but I feel compelled to make a brief comment about Mr. Harold Camping's claims that the rapture will be tomorrow. If, as I expect, things do not turn out as he claims they will, there are lessons we should learn from this.

Be careful of looking for hidden meanings in Scripture and basing things on complicated calculations as opposed to the clear meaning of Scripture. Especially if the clear teachings of Scripture say otherwise (Matthew 24:36-51; Acts 1:6,7; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3). (See my previous post on the subject.)

Be careful of exclusively following one person, especially if they are teaching that they are the sole possessor of God's truth and everyone else is wrong. There have been cases in church history when some individual had a clearer insight into God's truth than the Christian church at large (Martin Luther comes to mind), but they were not isolated cases, but were building on and followed by others. If someone says they alone have truth, as opposed to the entire rest of the Christian church, look at them very carefully indeed before following them. It is better to be informed by a variety of teachers rather than rely wholly on one man.

Be careful who you follow.

The Christ of History

Christianity is based around a series of historical events. It is not just an abstract philosophy. Though it has deep implications for our understanding of the universe. It is not just a system of ethics. Though it has profound effects on the way we behave. It is not just a mystical experience. Though it forms a basis for experiencing that presence of God in our lives. It is the message of how God invaded history, became a human being, lived a human life marked with profound teaching and supernatural events, died a criminal's death to paid the penalty for our sins, and rose again the third day. The question is, Is this believable? Now no one comes to God without the Spirit of God working in their lives (John 6:44; 15:5; Acts 13:48). But it is useful to look at the evidence.

1. The first question we need to ask before we can evaluate this is whether there is such a thing as truth. If there is not, then nothing makes any sense. (see), (see), and (see).

2. We also need to ask if science somehow precludes the idea of supernatural intervention. But this is simply an assumption without foundation. (see), (see), and (see).

3. Then we need to ask whether the records upon which the Christian faith is based are reliable  or whether they have been corrupted over time. The actual evidence, apart from speculation, is in their favor. (see), (see), and (see).

4. Also, we have to deal with the idea that someone deliberately altered what Christianity is. And this does not stand up to examination. (see), (see), and (see).

5. Further, the idea that Christianity grew up slowly over time or changed from its original set of beliefs does not fit the facts or the context it appeared in. (see), (see), and (see).

6. We are then faced with dealing with the reliability of the accounts and what they maintain. (see), (see), and (see). While those who refuse to even consider such possibilities will not be convinced, I conclude there is a real basis for the Christian faith.

Ultimately, we are left face to face with the person of Christ and must ask who we believe He is (Matthew 16:15). How we answer that is the basis for deciding the truth of Christianity. How do you answer this question?

Abraham's Example - Romans 4:18-22

Can We Trust These People?

Can we trust the writers of the New Testament? Now the identities of the authors are attested by many early sources. Further, it does not seem reasonable that the real originators of Christianity should leave us no evidence and that all we would have preserved would be forgeries made long after the fact. Or that none of the numerous critics of Christianity noticed this. Also, one test for acceptance of a book by Christians was whether the author was who he claimed to be.

Now one argument against the gospel accounts is the similarity of those accounts. But in the ancient world it was considered proper to repeat a story as it was generally told. We see this in the similarities of Samuel and Kings with Chronicles in the Old Testament. The Roman historians followed the same sort of pattern. But the gospels were not simply copied, but show many differences in details. This argues that they had a definite degree of independence. There is also archeological and historical evidence from the time confirming the accounts. Further, the accounts frequently portray the later "heroes" of the church in an uncomplimentary light.

According to the New Testament and tradition, the original founders of Christianity suffered severely, to the point of being put to death. Even if you discount these, within about thirty years of the founding of the Christianity people were being put to death by Nero for being Christians. Now this does not prove that Christianity is true, but it does show that the people involved believed what they were saying. It tells against any kind of conspiracy theory. Particularly since it is unclear what the conspirators thought they would get out of it. Even if the apostles somehow escaped, how did they manage to convince other people in such a short period of time to die for this belief? Also relevant here is Chuck Colson's objection. He was involved in the Watergate scandal, and he asked the question: If a small group of people with all the power of the presidency, in no danger of their lives, could not keep the Watergate break-in secret, how could these powerless people, in constant danger of death, manage it?

Some have claimed the gospels were originally novels. But would anyone get so confused as to die for a novel? Or if written after the persecution started, would anyone write a novel, knowing it could get them and anyone who read it killed? It could be claimed that the whole thing was based on the wishful thinking of the immediate followers of Jesus, similar to appearances of Elvis. This might work for the disciples, but how would they convince others? Can you imagine belief in Elvis becoming a major faith and ultimately taking over our society? We are then left with the conclusion that the writers of the New Testament were honest men, reporting what they saw or what they heard from others who saw. And we need to decide how we will respond to this.