The Sorry Condition of Christian Ethics

[Josh]

“Ethics” is a term for people who don’t want to follow the clear Bible teachings of right and wrong.

We don’t need “Christian ethics”. We need to obey the gospel.

[PetrChelcicky]

I am not sure about "Christian ethics", but we need a minimal "ethics" without attribute. And that simply because we are sent out to promote peace and agreement. This includes agreement about common rules for mutual conduct between Christians and Non-Christians: What is acceptable for us treating them? What must we therefore accept when they treat us likewise?
Golden rule principles are not particularly Christian.
So the minimal ethics has to be universal.
As for Christian specifics, I would classify them as distinct from this minimal ethics - as communitarian (Christian) "ideas about the good or right way of life". They have their own value of course, but should not be mixed with general ethical rules.

[joey_the_ox]

“Ethics” is a term for people who don’t want to follow the clear Bible teachings of right and wrong.

We don’t need “Christian ethics”. We need to obey the gospel.

But isn't figuring out what precisely "obey the gospel" means in a specific situation ethics? (Or maybe you could call it moral theology.)

[Bootstrap]

I think we’re missing the point here somewhat. It isn’t about having a centralized authority or even agreeing on everything. Mormonism has a strong central authority, but I don’t think it’s ever really had much of a moral center, as some of Ernie’s examples show.

So for example, the one value that probably defines Anabaptists is peace. From conservative to liberal, there’s a wide range of opinions about whether and when to call the police, whether it’s appropriate to serve in military noncombat positions, at what level it’s appropriate for advocate peace at the government level, whether it’s appropriate to pay or avoid the war tax, etc. Anabaptists can disagree on the right applications, but if you think another Anabaptist is wrong, you can appeal to them from the same shared values in a way you couldn’t with, say, your average Baptist.

In theory, at least, I would add Two Kingdom Theology to this. In practice, though, I think that's one of the things many Mennonites are dropping, on both sides of the spectrum and in between.

But the bigger question is this: are we driven by the teachings and example of Jesus? That should lead to unity.

[Sudsy]

I guess I have quite a different view of how to follow Jesus. Jesus left this earth but said He would send us the Holy Spirit as the Comforter and guide into all truths. And He did. So, it is not a matter of using our human reasonings to figure out how to follow Jesus. It isn't our interpretations of scripture either through our human reasonings and study. This obviously has been the approach by many if not most of us and we continue to disagree on what it means and how to apply it to our lives.

I believe it is only when we begin to recognize our need for Holy Spirit guidance and pursue listening for that still small voice to tell us the way that we should go, will we ever be able to live the Kingdom life that will produce the fruit of the Spirit. He may speak to us when reading scripture, listening to a preacher or others, just being quiet and waiting for Him to speak, He will use various means if we give up on our own thinking abilities and begin to learn to listen.

When we turn all our cares over to the Lord and begin to listen for Him to speak to us, He is there to guide us into what we need to know which may be far different from what our minds might like to know. Just because the Holy Spirit lives within every believer does not mean that all the thoughts a believer has comes from the Holy Spirit no matter how logical and good they may appear. There are many spirits in this world talking to us and we need to learn His voice above others. Jesus said His sheep know His voice and they follow Him. We also know as sheep we are prone to wander from the Shepherd's voice. And in today's multi-media world these other voices/spirits are in our natural ears constantly. It requires a real determined effort to shut them out. And sometimes these voices come from well meaning believers who do not listen well to the Spirit. I include myself here.

I think when we are willing to give up on religion and begin working hard on relationship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit the ways we should live will get clearer and clearer and we don't need to get side-tracked on what others do.

This is what I currently believe and am struggling to put it to practise yet I believe and to some extent experience it. But it is a moment by moment walk of desiring the Spirit's guidance even if in many things He is silent and guides us where we need the guidance.

I guess in this I don't fit in well with Anabaptism today although I believe originally it did recognize the need for Holy Spirit direction. On this forum I seldom read much at all about the Holy Spirit. Why ? It's puzzling.

YMMV.

[temporal1]

“Ethics” is a term for people who don’t want to follow the clear Bible teachings of right and wrong.

We don’t need “Christian ethics”. We need to obey the gospel.

i don’t believe it’s a word in scriptures.
it could have been. it was of interest to ancient Greek philosophers, and remains so today.

interesting it’s not in scriptures. “Follow Me,” is.

[silentreader]

I guess I have quite a different view of how to follow Jesus. Jesus left this earth but said He would send us the Holy Spirit as the Comforter and guide into all truths. And He did. So, it is not a matter of using our human reasonings to figure out how to follow Jesus. It isn't our interpretations of scripture either through our human reasonings and study. This obviously has been the approach by many if not most of us and we continue to disagree on what it means and how to apply it to our lives.

I believe it is only when we begin to recognize our need for Holy Spirit guidance and pursue listening for that still small voice to tell us the way that we should go, will we ever be able to live the Kingdom life that will produce the fruit of the Spirit. He may speak to us when reading scripture, listening to a preacher or others, just being quiet and waiting for Him to speak, He will use various means if we give up on our own thinking abilities and begin to learn to listen.

When we turn all our cares over to the Lord and begin to listen for Him to speak to us, He is there to guide us into what we need to know which may be far different from what our minds might like to know. Just because the Holy Spirit lives within every believer does not mean that all the thoughts a believer has comes from the Holy Spirit no matter how logical and good they may appear. There are many spirits in this world talking to us and we need to learn His voice above others. Jesus said His sheep know His voice and they follow Him. We also know as sheep we are prone to wander from the Shepherd's voice. And in today's multi-media world these other voices/spirits are in our natural ears constantly. It requires a real determined effort to shut them out. And sometimes these voices come from well meaning believers who do not listen well to the Spirit. I include myself here.

I think when we are willing to give up on religion and begin working hard on relationship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit the ways we should live will get clearer and clearer and we don't need to get side-tracked on what others do.

This is what I currently believe and am struggling to put it to practise yet I believe and to some extent experience it. But it is a moment by moment walk of desiring the Spirit's guidance even if in many things He is silent and guides us where we need the guidance.

I guess in this I don't fit in well with Anabaptism today although I believe originally it did recognize the need for Holy Spirit direction. On this forum I seldom read much at all about the Holy Spirit. Why ? It's puzzling.

YMMV.

Would you believe that Holy Spirit guidance should be consistent with a plain reading of Scripture? Or should we be open to new revelation?

[Sudsy]

Would you believe that Holy Spirit guidance should be consistent with a plain reading of Scripture? Or should we be open to new revelation?

I don't know what a 'plain reading of Scripture' would be. If it means to take all scripture in a literal way, then I would not look for Holy Spirit guidance to be consistent with things that were not meant to be taken literal.

I believe there are many who say God tells them this or that and I am not one to say the Bible is the only way God speaks to us today but I also believe we need to look to the Holy Spirit to discern what all is being said today by any human. I don't believe the guidance of the Spirit conflicts with the scriptures when the scriptures are understood in the way God intended them to be.

We should be careful not to put our trust in any man or woman and I believe with so much access we have today to so many preachers and books we really need the gift of the discerning of spirits. I can and often do hear things in sermons that leap out at me as something I really need to learn and then this same preacher could slip into a fleshly mode and discernment should be able to detect that. Some might pack it in with, for example, John Howard Yoder's writings all together due to his sinning but I believe God can use any of us to speak truths regardless if at other times in our lives we are sinning. God often has used imperfect people to accomplish His plans.

If no 'new revelation' means that the 'canon is closed' and God doesn't speak anything beyond what the bible says as assembled by various men, I personally would not put that limitation on what God does. On the other hand, whatever any 'new revelation' is, if it reflects something quite different from Jesus teachings, I would doubt this 'new revelation' comes from God.

John MacArthur takes quite a shot here on 'new revelation' and especially charismatics. I agree there are some very questionable examples of 'new revelation' amongst the charismatics and John emphasizes 'Sola Scriptura'. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the primary text to say the 'canon is closed' and that settles it. I'm not one to go that far yet I think if we ever needed the gift of discernment we need it today especially if it comes to the Gospel that saves us.

Here is the put down for 'new revelation' by McArthur for those interested - https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A3 ... revelation

[silentreader]

Would you believe that Holy Spirit guidance should be consistent with a plain reading of Scripture? Or should we be open to new revelation?

I don't know what a 'plain reading of Scripture' would be. If it means to take all scripture in a literal way, then I would not look for Holy Spirit guidance to be consistent with things that were not meant to be taken literal.

I believe there are many who say God tells them this or that and I am not one to say the Bible is the only way God speaks to us today but I also believe we need to look to the Holy Spirit to discern what all is being said today by any human. I don't believe the guidance of the Spirit conflicts with the scriptures when the scriptures are understood in the way God intended them to be.

We should be careful not to put our trust in any man or woman and I believe with so much access we have today to so many preachers and books we really need the gift of the discerning of spirits. I can and often do hear things in sermons that leap out at me as something I really need to learn and then this same preacher could slip into a fleshly mode and discernment should be able to detect that. Some might pack it in with, for example, John Howard Yoder's writings all together due to his sinning but I believe God can use any of us to speak truths regardless if at other times in our lives we are sinning. God often has used imperfect people to accomplish His plans.

If no 'new revelation' means that the 'canon is closed' and God doesn't speak anything beyond what the bible says as assembled by various men, I personally would not put that limitation on what God does. On the other hand, whatever any 'new revelation' is, if it reflects something quite different from Jesus teachings, I would doubt this 'new revelation' comes from God.

John MacArthur takes quite a shot here on 'new revelation' and especially charismatics. I agree there are some very questionable examples of 'new revelation' amongst the charismatics and John emphasizes 'Sola Scriptura'. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the primary text to say the 'canon is closed' and that settles it. I'm not one to go that far yet I think if we ever needed the gift of discernment we need it today especially if it comes to the Gospel that saves us.

Here is the put down for 'new revelation' by McArthur for those interested - https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A3 ... revelation

I find the Holy Spirit speaks to me most clearly when I am reading and praying over the written Word concerning the Living Word. And the Holy Spirit never speaks about other people's shortcomings.

[MaxPC]

“Ethics” is a term for people who don’t want to follow the clear Bible teachings of right and wrong.

We don’t need “Christian ethics”. We need to obey the gospel.

I like this. If we had to put a name to "obey the gospel" I would call it "Christian discipleship".