Ben

As I think about it more, I’ve come to believe that everyone thinks their generation is much more wicked than the previously. Nobody that I have read of spoke of their own generation very well; the best would be to refer to their own generation as recovering and repenting, and returning to old paths.

One reason for this is because we are not present in past generations, so we only know what we read. We/they don’t experience it first hand.

Another reason, I think, is that although sin remains the same, the expression of sin changes over time. Man is wicked, and that hasn’t changed, but it is being expressed in new and more ‘in your face’ ways as the years go on.

Just some thoughts. I do, however, look at Ryle’s generation and wonder how he said some of the things he did… I guess you had to be there.

I hadn’t thought about it like that, but certainly true; no one can truly know what a previous (or obviously, a future) generation was like. You just can’t help but wonder, though, as you look at the corruption all around you, if we’re not sliding into the blackest of the black abyss of sin. I think of Romans one, where there seems to be a downward spiral to sin (but hey, am I contradicting myself here? that was written two-thousand years ago, about a previous generation!), and Ephesians 4, where Paul talks about the old self being “corrupted in accordance to the lusts of deceit” - almost seems to indicate an ongoing, worsening corruption and defilement.

God opened up my life about five years ago to Puritan/Reformed writers like Edwards, Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon, Pink, etc. - I was just blown away when I first read “Religious Affections” - it was like reading someone from another planet. Just makes you wonder what that “planet” was like, and what they would think of “this one”.

Ben

For example: is murder (however you define it) morally evil when God forbids it but morally “good” when God commands it? If we define murder as the unwarranted taking of human life (i.e., not for self-defense or for retribution for murder), it seems God has, in instances commanded that very thing:

1 Samuel 15:3 ” Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

Hosea 13:16 “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

In both instances, God commands the taking of infant human lives. It would seem that the prohibition against murder is not an absolute prohibition, but only when God forbids it. If He commands it, then it’s “good”.

Of course, this would seem to make the business of determining what is “ethical” in any situation a rather perilous endeavor.

Am I off here?

I guess you had to be there.

This is right. If I was to look only around myself in the seventies, I would say that that period of time is much worse than now. Now that I am older and have broadened my horizons and learned to use binoculars instead of a microscope, I can see that there hasn’t been much change. I would think too, that Edwards or Whitefield working in their particular fields of harvest, or Wesley in his, might come away thinking that the other guys have it better, or worse depending on what letters and circulars were saying. Our centricity tends to blind us to the rest of the world. I think we can survey the epistles and Revelations two and three, see the variegated appearance of the church and be ableby that to observe from above, the chutney consistency of the church throughout the world.

James said:

For example: is murder (however you define it)

However? It matters to the infinite degree how we define it.
To communicate, we must have shared definitions, so since it is whatever to you, I will define it, then, let us stay with an agreed upon definition or the result will be that we do not know what is is.

Murder is the taking of innocent life. It is also murder, when one takes non-innocent life without the proper authority to do so.
Innocence is the operative term in the first case. Authority in the second. In the Scriptures that you listed: where is there a taking of innocent life? And, if not that, where is there a taking of non-innocent life without due authority?

My questions for you still stand. But, I have another, James. Who is innocent according to Scripture?

Are “infants and sucklings” capable of sin? Yes, they are “born in sin” (have a sin nature), but what sort of actual sins can a four-month-old commit that would render them worthy of being hacked to pieces? I’m just wondering. (note: lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I oppose abortion )

Thomas asks: “Who is innocent according to Scripture?”
Well, I’m not sure how you define “innocent”, but Scripture does label several men as “righteous”:

Job 1:1 “In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.”

Genesis 6:9 “Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.”
2 Peter 7:9 “Lot … that righteous man.”

Yes, men are declared righteous, and by the same power that declared them a all under sin. It is not that virtue or intemperance is inherent in them. We are neither mystics, nor gnostics. But, rather that God has by his authority, made his creation to be what he creates it to be. When he declares all men under sin, they are worthy of death.

Our determinations of what constitutes innocence, and righteousness do have differing levels of reckoning, and those are fixed by God. God is inherently good, we by his declaration are what we are. Paul’s retort to “man” is found also in Isaiah, but particularly it is this, “Who are you O man to speak back to the one who has made you.” It is an act of sin to question him and say, “Why have you made me thus.” In another place Paul puts the glory where it belongs, “By the grace of God I am what I am.” The unbeliever confuses this with caprice, accusing him of wrong doing, calling him a harsh taskmaster reaping where he has not sown. But God does not change, his work was completed from the beginning, it is perfect, and is what he has declared it to be. The creature, cannot complain, for in doing so, he shows that he is not innocent, but resposible and held accountable for every word, thought and deed.

Jesus made it clear there is no one that is good, except God. You can look at it this way: value is in the eye of the beholder. The beholder, is God, and what he deems valuable only becomes so because he is of infinite worth, alone worthy of honor and praise.

Again, you desire categories, black and white, humanistic dicotomies by which you may determine good from evil but they do not fit within the realm of the wisdom of God. But, as I said before, that is the sin which condemns all man kind. What God says is sin is sin. It is not for us to choose which is what. God declares Job righteous, but the book of Job declares him a blasphemer and accuser of God for which he is rebuked by the prophet, Elihu, a sort of John the Baptist who preaches of the intercessor right before the appearance of the Lord, where Job is called to account for his sins and repents. For those sins God is fully righteous in sending the Devil to Job in the first place. Because the only thing that was put on display was the true nature of what God had created Job to be. Something of which Job had no idea, that is, the sovereignty of God (see God’s rebuke of Job). Lot, was declared righteous but that was before his drunken incest with his daughters. I suppose you think him innocent? No one who is so drunk that they know not who they are having sex with, can even have sex. He may not have known what time it was, but he knew who it was. In either case, whether you think the man innocent in the act of incest, the man was a drunk like righteous Noah. And even though Lot’s soul was vexed by the actions of the men in Sodom, how did Lot come to live there? What price did he pay? Why would he prostitute his daughters, if he was so righteous? Why would he need to be dragged from Sodom, if it was within him to do so?

Among Calvinists there is a question pertaining to the death of the innocents. Are they afforded salvation? Some say yes, others no, still others will not say. The latter is probably the safest, because Scripture does not directly address it. One thing that no will assume though is that they are innocent of the guilt of Adam for which they are under condemnation. The question on innocence comes into play not even in their actions, but in God’s work of regeneration by which he declares the guilty innocent.

So we have definitions which we must apply. Those definition do not come to us from the world. They come to from the Word. How do we apply ethics? If you are asking that question, it is most likely best that you start with understanding the Ten Commandments as given to us by God, not Moses. But you might also consider what Jesus meant when he said:

If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free…Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

I have one other question, and it’s a difficult one and I’m not sure it’s a fair one, but it’s an honest question: do you love God because you believe He’s “good”, or do you love Him because you believe He’s chosen you to be saved from a horrible eternity? In other words, were you to find out that your hopes were wrong, that you were not, in fact, a member of the elect, would you still praise Him? I’ve met many people who can live with the idea that God has not chosen their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, sisters or wives or husbands, but I’m not sure I’ve met any who do not believe that God, for whatever reason, has not chosen them.

If you came to the realization that you were not chosen, would you still love Him?

I love God, who is good. I love God because he has saved me. I love God, because he is God. All men will praise him, elect and reprobate alike for “Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” In the final assessment, if you do not know him, then you do not know him to have chosen you. Our faith is vital union with the Eternal One, so that there is no finding out differently than what faith delivers to us, surety and certainty.

Hope that answers your questions. And forgive my curtness. Your questions and statements are welcome and caused me to study more deeply. My hope is that you come to understand the faith in truth. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, a seeker, who wanted to know. Jesus’ answers seem short and cutting. But, he explained that the reality can only be known by those who have already been born again. It was for this purpose that Christ came into the world, that those believing in him would have eternal life. He gives faith, we place it in him, and unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom. So, if today you hear his voice, repent and believe and you will have eternal live now and for evermore.