The Sorry Condition of Christian Ethics

[Bootstrap]

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.

I agree with this completely. And I tend to feel the most commonality with other Christians who are immersed in the Bible, immersed in prayer, and seeking what the Holy Spirit is speaking to them, together, as a community. Even if they are not Mennonite at all. But a lot of Mennonites I have known really are like this.

I like the word devoted. Devoted to God's word. Devoted to God. Devoted to each other. Devoted to prayer. If we save ourselves from this crooked generation, that's the result. Devotion is more than discipleship, it combines discipleship with an intentional love.

And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

I don't think you can have true Christian ethics without that. Christianity is not a philosophy, it is devotion.

And you're right, the Holy Spirit is not about other people's faults. But a significant portion of the fruit of the flesh is related to fault-finding and division.

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Enmity, strife, dissensions, divisions, envy, jealousy, etc. are not signs of holiness, but they are often signs of self-righteousness.

Notice how the fruit of the Spirit is not about what's wrong with other people. A fair amount of it is about dealing graciously with the faults of others:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

I have a long way to grow in all of this, but I'm convinced that this is one of the guiding lights we need if we want to live as Christians.

[Ernie]

Menno Simons listed one of the marks of the "true church" as being "unadulterated, pure doctrine." Was he wrong about this?

Who determines what "unadulterated, pure doctrine" is? Anabaptist have obviously been unable to agree over the past 500 years.

Then it would seem that Menno Simons was wrong in his identification of this as a mark of the true church (certainly a possibility - he was not some infallible prophet).

Menno was quite devisive and sectarian in his pursuit of pure doctrine from the little I have read. Am I correct in thinking that he acknowledged this error in his later life? It may have been someone else.

David Bercot has his set of doctrines that he considers (in my words) to be "mere Christianity". Not resisting evil and returning good for evil is one of those. Bercot is well aware that many Plain Anabaptists have adulterated doctrine when it comes to soteriology, end times, etc, however because their practice or orthopraxy is closest to what he reads in the early church writings, he has decided to join them rather than try to work along side of them. (His attempts at working along side of them ended up being a big dissappointment for himself and others.) I know he would not say that Anabaptists are orthodox in all their doctrines, but the way they live out their faith "checks off" the doctrines that are most important to him.

[joey_the_ox]

Menno was quite devisive and sectarian in his pursuit of pure doctrine from the little I have read. Am I correct in thinking that he acknowledged this error in his later life? It may have been someone else.

I am not sure about this. I'll try to look into it later if I remember.

David Bercot has his set of doctrines that he considers (in my words) to be "mere Christianity". Not resisting evil and returning good for evil is one of those. Bercot is well aware that many Plain Anabaptists have adulterated doctrine when it comes to soteriology, end times, etc, however because their practice or orthopraxy is closest to what he reads in the early church writings, he has decided to join them rather than try to work along side of them. (His attempts at working along side of them ended up being a big dissappointment for himself and others.) I know he would not say that Anabaptists are orthodox in all their doctrines, but the way they live out their faith "checks off" the doctrines that are most important to him.

If Bercot is right, it would seem to indicate that "ethics depends on theology" is not correct.

[silentreader]

Ran across this to-day,

The tendency today is for large numbers
to say not only that they are disinterested in doctrine,
but also that doctrine is quite unnecessary
(…)
If God has chosen to use terms as
righteousness, justification, sanctification, redemption, atonement, reconciliation, propitiation,
then it is our duty to face those terms
and to consider their meaning.

~~Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

[Josh]

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.

The only other source of law is “natural law”, that is, man as beasts, who gradually figures our very basic ways to deal with biological conflicts. So, for example, if someone else hits you, hit them back harder. This eventually leads to a “peace” because nobody wants to get hit harder.

To understand God’s expectations on unbelievers, we can read the law he gave in the OT. That is indeed what is lawful and expected of all men.

We can also see Jesus’ new law of gospel living for us in the NT. The Bible says all are without excuse: God expects everyone to accept and obey the gospel. Those who do not will be judged and condemned according to the OT.