Ethics

Explore the issue of divorce. Consider what Scripture has to say about divorce. Consider the causes of divorce of infidelity (porneia) and abandonment by unbeliever. What about divorce between believers or no infidelity? Consider the topic of remarriage after divorce. Obstacles in the American church include no unified view or teaching, no unified church discipline, and civil marriage and divorce. Just because there is adultery there does not need to be divorce. We need to prepare people for when marriage gets hard. Explore the issue of euthanasia, both active and passive. Davis only uses the term "euthanasia" to refer to active killing, so for him there would not be such a thing as passive euthanasia. That is just dying. Consider the definition of life, indications of life, end of life, distinguishing physical and mental processes and needs, and suicide. Is euthanasia ever right? Death, as much as we should never unlawfully cause it, is guaranteed for all of us. Death is not the ultimate enemy. When people are dying we do not have to do everything to prevent their death. On the other hand, if someone is alive, we can never encourage starvation.

Explore the issue of elders being restricted by gender. Consider our right responsibilities with respect to proclaiming ethical commands. Our first responsibility is our own congregation. Our second responsibility is to our own denomination. Our third responsibility is to the church in general. What about unbelievers? We need to know they are being hurt by sin (theirs and others). We need to teach that sin is real and teach the gospel. We also need to recognize the damage done by church misbehavior. New Testament commands are in light of the gospel of grace, not prior to it. Explore sexual and marital ethics. Human sexuality is designed by God to be inter-personal and to occur within the framework of marriage. From the standpoint of the biblical norm and creation design, there are degrees of deviation. From the standpoint of the individual (and spouse), all extra-marital activity is damaging. From the standpoint of justification, all sexual sin can be forgiven. Consider the staggering statistic of pornography in that 64% of Christian men and 15% of Christian women acknowledge looking at porn at least once per week. Easy privacy and access requires intentional accountability. Consider that exposure frequently occurs at ages younger than 10 and is commonplace by the end of high school. Pornography and/or Internet relationships are cited in more than half of all divorces. (www.covenanteyes.com/pornstats/) Pornography has such a fast route to the pleasure center, it produces addiction quickly and devastates relationships.

Explore pastoral Issues that are "normal". In our congregations there will be people who are unapologetic and reject Scripture. There will be relatively simple and clear issues and people with obvious self-interest. Part of the ethics is not just how to take the message of Scripture and bring it our congregations. Just as significant is learning how we are submissive to Scripture and identify the structure we can use to maintain that submission. We are not fully sanctified and must have accountability. In “normal” pastoral issues we will need to recognize an unwillingness to submit to authority, accountability, and organizational structure. Hard ethical issues are real, but far less common than straightforward sin. Explore what is meant by sins of omission and commission. Commission or “ought not” is compared to omission or “ought”. Commission is when we are actively doing what we have been commanded not to do. Omission is not doing when there is something we should be doing. Legalism tends to focus on commission. Consider that avoiding sin is different than actively doing what is right. What if all the church did was avoid sin? There would be no proclamation of the gospel, no support for the poor, no discipling or education, and no opposition to social injustice. Consider that there are these kinds of churches existing today. Also recognize that deontology tends to oppose commission sins, teleology tends to oppose omission sins, and existential tends to be the most balanced in this area. It is hard to be rightly inactive.

What comes next in our method in pastoral ethics for "new" issues? We have covered the need to find the question and the missing or supposed "ought" and considered what we want the answer to be or think it is and what the "tribe" wants the answer to be or think it is. The next thing we need to do is to search Scripture. Consider the Issue of abortion. Scripture speaks directly to homosexuality and it says "no". Consider the issue of in utero gene therapy. As we search Scripture, is there direct application? We need to find historical interpretations, underlying principles or moral law, and use analogies. We need to craft an "ought" and critique the "ought”. We also need to openly admit the weaknesses in our final answer. On the issue of in utero gene therapy, we need to protect the dignity of people whether we fully establish exactly the moment they become people. Explore a case study of Environmental Ethics with the specific topic of recycling. What is the “ought” and implied “is”? If that “is” is true, what else does it mean? What do we want the truth to be? What does culture lead us to believe? Consider Scripture and our proposed answer. On the topic of recycling, it is said that recycling saves the environment and conserves our resources. We also hear that nature is good, plastic does not belong, and humans are not natural. Consider that every organism pollutes. There is an ontological argument for preserving nature.

Continue to explore the environmental issue of recycling. Consider the claim that we should conserve our resources. The teleological argument is our future best interest. "You ought to recycle" has two really different types of frameworks. Save the environment is deontological and suggests that nature is valuable and we should not change it. It is a duty to protect and preserve it. That we should conserve our resources is Teleological and suggests self-protection and self-interest. It is utilitarian. Recall that for our case study in environmental ethics on the specific topic of recycling, we asked if there was an “ought” and implied “is” and that If that “is” is true, what else does it mean? We asked what do we want the truth to be and what does culture lead us to believe? We then search Scripture and propose our answer. Does Scripture support recycling? Nature is good and humans are not natural. Consider the term “natural”. The word "natural" has come to take on a religious meaning. Consider that the word "nature" does not carry with it goodness. There is a need to recall our method for "new” issues and ask ourselves, What do we want the answer to be or think it is? What has God told us about nature? In Romans 8:22 we read, “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.” Creation is affected by the Fall and we will toil against it. Do not expect medicine to be better because it is natural. Do not expect medicine to be worse or better because it is artificial. We have an active stewardship role within the creation which means we are supposed to change things, but for the purpose of God's good work not for our own self-interest. Many examples of socially accepted commands demonstrate themselves to be founded on non-Scriptural or anti-Scriptural foundations.

Explore Paul's Letter to the Corinthians. Consider that the form love takes is discipline for the purpose of restoration. In church discipline there is a need for grace and excommunication. Explore the process of church discipline. There should be an examination for a meaningful, informed profession of faith. Next there should be instruction on the topic. implementation of discipline follows and then a process of restoration. Consider that denominationalism has helped to cause the death of church discipline. We need to have a real process of discipline in which excommunication is possible and is understood to be loving and gracious. There is clarification of a statement in John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Christian Life.

Continue to explore the pastoral issue of church discipline. It could be explained as ex – community – fication, or loss of community. We need to be sure that what we are doing church discipline for is really what we ought to be doing it for. Sometimes in our desire to be loving to people, we are actually hurting them worse than not helping them to know what is wrong. Consider the statistics of abortion and that having had an abortion is no longer subject to church discipline. Church discipline should be so marked by love that when excommunication happens it is unmistakable that it was gracious. The community that we build needs to be good enough for discipline to be done.

Continue to explore a method in pastoral ethics for "new" issues. We need to find the question and the missing or supposed "ought". What do we want the answer to be or think it is? What does the "tribe" want the answer to be or think it is? Confirmation bias is the recognition, in general, if we make a hypothesis about what the answer will be, we will tend to find evidence to support it. Confirmation bias also gets to the place where we are really committed to something being true. Consider that we are not the pure, objective, rational beings that we wish we were. We need to be intentionally aware not to trust ourselves to be objective. We need a community but even more we need revelation. Consider that every "ought" implies an "is". All "ought" statements presuppose some kind of underlying reality. If there is nothing but physical matter and energy, there is no real right and wrong. Consider the topic of civil rights. In our pastoral ethics method for "new" issues we need to figure out the implied "is" and the worldview, value system, or other sources and consequences. Explore the topic of embryonic stem cell research Those against embryonic stem cell research take for granted that human life has real value and dignity and that dignity and value start at conception. The secular side for embryonic stem cell research sees them as only cells. The failure to recognize the underlying difference makes it impossible to have a conversation. The real argument is whether fertilized eggs have dignity that is more important than any potential medical value. Consider the larger fallacy of the slippery slope. Slippery slope arguments are used to prevent people from being able to make appropriate and good adjustments to an idea. Consider marriage issues.

Explore the worldview of an issue. There are "oughts" floating around in the church in the whole area of the value of nature that arise out of an unexamined worldview and people are having their conscience bound. As leaders in the church, we need to make sure people in the church are not having their conscience bound by things that are invented. Explore issues in Scripture and the topic of authority. What if Scripture directly contradicts what you think ought to be true? Scripture is our authority and we should submit to it. It is good for us and for His church if we do submit to Scripture. What if Scripture is embarrassing? What if the clear teaching will hurt your ministry? A suggested read is Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. For ethics, what we believe is demonstrated in what we do. We need to be critical, thoughtful people who submit to Scripture and for whom Scripture leads our worldview. In hermeneutics we need to ask what is our methodology? Will we stick with it when we don't like it?

Explore the Tenth Commandment. “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Coveting is always an expression of discontent. Explore the stages of coveting. Stage 1 is the physiological desire stage. Stage 2 is an inadvertent sinful desire. Stage 3 is nursing that desire. Stage 4 is acting to fulfill the desire. We need to recognize the physiological desire stage. As soon as we are planning to fulfill our sinful desire we are acting to fulfill it. Consider coveting versus desiring. Coveting is desire for what is not mine or desire to make mine by means that are wrong. For Frame, the stages of desire are: 1) Spontaneous desire 2) Nursing desire 3) Planning to fulfill it and 4) acting to fulfill it. Is stage 1 really a single stage? Explore the subject of gambling and the monetary impact, chance or contingency, desire for wealth, desire for winning, recreation, threat of addiction, and foolishness or sin involved. Gambling can lead to addiction and become incredibly destructive. Review the First and Second Table of the Law. The First Table consists of Commandments 1-4 or our duty to God. The Second Table consists of Commandments 5-10 or our duty to man. Jesus tells us in Matthew 22:37-39, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Consider the story of Jesus and the Rich Man.

In pastoral ethics, we need the equipment to be able to approach issues that are unexpected. What do we do when science, technology, or society raises a question that hasn't been raised before? Explore a method for "new" Issues. We need to find the question and the missing or supposed "ought". What do we want the answer to be or think it is? What does the "tribe" want the answer to be or think it is? Consider the crowd that we are imbedded in and what they all think will significantly affect the way an argument sounds to us and the way we think. What happens when we are being divided between two crowds? Consider that we find churches that are made after our own image instead of churches that we plug into and get conformed to the image of Christ. We search for one that already affirms the things that we want in ourselves to be affirmed. We need an approach that is suspicious of our own motivations and suspicious of the crowd that we are in.

Explore the Eighth Commandment, “You shall not steal.” This commandment presupposes private property and presupposes work for pay. Consider the issues of stewardship and ultimate ownership, theft by deception and theft by possession (poverty, family need, etc.). If you have the means to support the poor and you do nothing to do it, there is something wrong. The way Scripture talks about it is that the church should only be burdened with widows and orphans if their families cannot support them. Our first responsibility is to our families. The next tier is that the church as a whole should be taking care of the poor within the church. The third tier would be the poor in general. Explore the issue of those who will not work.

Continue to explore the Eighth Commandment, “You shall not steal.” Consider the issue of theft and the church. Is the tithe civil, ceremonial, or moral law? Giving to the church includes the tithe or 10% plus offerings. Explore the hermeneutical question, Does the New Testament need to explicitly carry forward the tithe? Malachi 3: 8-10 states, "Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this, “ says the Lord of hosts, ”if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows." Is the tithe qualified as civil, ceremonial, or moral law? Using the language of ten percent can take multiple forms. Is the tithe carried forward into the New Testament? We read in Luke 11:42, "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." If we hate justice, and fail to love God, our tithe is utterly worthless. As a general principle, if we live in the excess that we live, and ten percent is too much, then there probably is a heart issue that needs to be examined. Explore our modern issue. Given the extravagance of our modern incomes and lifestyles, is there any justification for any citizen of a developed country giving less than 10%? Critique this: The tithe should always be given to the local church, and para-church ministries should get the overflow or offerings or should not exist. The principle is the church we attend ought to be sufficiently representative of the whole church, and in giving our tithe, all of the work of the church is being done. Para-church organizations operate parallel to the church. Today "justice" means someone got more than us. Consider the issue of theft and the poor. Care for the poor is clearly one of the most significant Scriptural commands. Consider excess and wealth. Is wealth differential wrong necessarily? Consider over-consumption, environmentalism and future generations. What is "wealthy"? Consider the issues of interest and usury, communism, and government vs. church or individual programs. Social justice no longer seems to be as concerned with everyone having enough but is more concerned with making sure there are equal levels. There is nothing wrong with disparity between incomes. There is something wrong with poverty.

Explore the Ninth Commandment, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Consider that the context indicates a kind of legal situation, not lying generally. Is truthfulness always required? Consider the issues of killing and murder, and deception and lying. Deception is a false word that is appropriate. Lying is a false word that is inappropriate. For Frame, "a lie is a word or act that intentionally deceives a neighbor in order to hurt him" (or some other neighbor). Who is a Neighbor? Who judges hurt? Consider that very rarely is gossip entirely true and it is unbelievably destructive. Gossip is unbelievably bad and it destroys churches. As ministry leaders, your sin will hurt more people than people who are not leaders. Consider the example of Rahab. Being truthful is more than just speaking the truth because we can speak the truth in hatred or gossip and be speaking wrongly. One view is that when you lie, you do break the law but you have done the lesser of two evils and grace covers over your sin. This is the tragic moral choice. Consider the issue of deception when entering a closed country as a missionary. Is there justified deception? Consider the topics of opposition to evil and Kierkegaard and the teleological suspension of the ethical. Charles Hodge stated, "if...a man is not bound to speak the truth, those to whom the declaration of signification is made have no right to expect him to do so." Consider the false words of, "promise not to tell" or "you are the prettiest girl or handsomest man in the world." Consider games, illusions, jokes, or tricks and the use of sermon illustrations. Tell an illustration as only an illustration or tell the truth.

We read in Matthew 22:37, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." The neighborly portion of the Ten Commandments includes the Fifth Commandment, “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you." Consider that honor means more than obey, but does not mean worship. Consider the distinction between “honor" and worship (deference to authority). Calvin used the terms reverence, obedience, and gratitude. Frame used the terms reverence (existential), submission (normative), and support (situational). Consider that there is a difference between being under authority and being trapped under oppression. The parental relationship does not include the right to abuse. There is discipline that is good and right and there is abuse that is always wrong. The call to honor and submit will not be a call to honor abuse. Consider that the Fifth Commandment’s terms of "father and mother" get expanded to "elders and authorities" in the Larger Catechism.

Explore the concept of equality. Any kind of equality statement requires something that is true supporting the equality. Consider submission, equivalence, and equality. Equivalence (empirical) is not necessary for equality (ontological). Consider the examples of role, gender, race, wealth, and education. Explore that we have made equality empirical. Ultimately, there are no such things as groups and ultimately, there are individual human beings. If a group of people having a particular characteristic is contrary to their equality, then an individual having that characteristic is contrary to their equality. If equality is measurable then it does not exist. Groups are only identifiable because there are differences. We need to fight against the identification of difference within identification of lack of equality. Consider that submission does not imply inferiority. Consider the examples of slavery, gender, age, and business authority. We cannot make what is ontologically true equal to what is empirically measurable. If the church is in a position to affect social change it should cause slavery to cease. Just because you are a slave does not mean you are inferior to the master. Just because you are a master does not mean you are superior to the slave. Consider that submission is not demeaning. Consider the example of the Trinity. Authority is unavoidable. Explore the issue of race and the local church. If we take for granted that the local church should be racially diverse, and we note that it is not, what should be done? The solutions could be to continue to allow freedom to choose, force integration, or take a middle road (s). How do culture and race associations relate to this issue? Many churches are extremely racially and culturally homogenous. People tend to gravitate to what is most comfortable. What is most comfortable tends to be what is most familiar. The primary reason people go into a church is because they feel comfortable. Explore the topic of the generational congregation. Somehow there has to be a way to hold on to the importance of good theology without mandating the ability to really deeply understand good theology to be part of the church.

For Frame, the State is an extension of the family. Government "ought" to be Christian. Is that a practice-able or im-practice-able ought? Consider other views of earthly government that include, separate spheres, anti-Christian, natural law or natural revelation, corruptible or redeemable, and the social contract theory. What level of political involvement is appropriate for Christians? Pastors? Churches? The gospel is good news, it is not a new government. Politics, government, and civil law effects our lives and we are called to have a role and responsibility in it. If the state is given by God in any way to restrain evil, it ought to have some role in taking care of the poor. Consider the issue of Social Security.

We should not agree to make any kind of equivalence between a definition of who a person is that is based upon the actions that they are taking or would like to take, and the kind of status of a person that comes out of gender and race in particular. If homosexuality is equivalent to race or gender in the degree which it defines the kind of person that you are, then there are within the church only two possibilities. Scripture has clear teaching against homosexuality. We have to either say the gospel is not for all people or that Scripture is not true. If activity defines the kind of person that you are, there is a problem for the gospel all together. Then Scripture is not able to be normative anymore. Within the church, homosexuality was used to define people so that they could be rejected. The tacit acceptance of sexual immorality in the church, in the contexts of rampant divorce, openness to cohabitation, and failure to confront pornography sufficiently, propagates the church's problem confronting LGBT sexual immorality. As this becomes more a matter of policy, religion is going to be something you are allowed to have but not something you are allowed to act according to. It is ok to believe a thing but it is not ok for your beliefs to have consequences. We need to be careful inside the church first because we are taking a category of people and making them feel like the church is not for them. We need to be careful outside the church because we are getting ourselves into a public policy area. There is an issue on our ability to practice religion freely.

Continue to explore the Sixth Commandment, “You shall not murder.” Consider the issues of euthanasia, health, and suicide. The term euthanasia means “good death” and can be either passive or active. Consider the issue of health. Do intentional decisions that will cause death break the command? Suicide is a pastoral concern and it is not unforgivable. It is a sin. How do we handle it when someone says they want to die because of emotional stress? Explore the question of how the church should handle mental illness. The broad meaning of, “You shall not murder”, is do not take any action that leads, immediately or in the long term, to death, whether this is physical death, spiritual death, or even the kind of emotive death characterized by an utter lack of joy. Consider the issues of anger or hatred and oppression or abuse. Abuse does not have to result in death to be breaking the commandment. Consider quarreling or fighting. We need to be joyful. Christ has set us free. Consider immoderate drinking, eating, working, or playing. Consider that moderation is a virtue and immoderation leads to really significant damage. Consider the issues of drinking and smoking. Explore the Seventh Commandment, “You shall not commit adultery.” The term adultery, lo' tin' af, means no sex with another person's spouse and in general, sexual purity. Sex is restricted to marriage and marriage is very tightly controlled. Explore a critique of the church on sexual purity. We have massively endorsed the idea of not getting married until we are economically in position to be able to be self-supporting. We have also endorsed dating as early as you feel like it. There needs to be church discipline for people in the church living together. If we really believe the gospel then we are letting them hurt each other. Consider the Seventh Commandment in regard to the issues of economics and marriage; polygamy and extended single life; divorce, remarriage, and state marriage; and reproduction. There are two biblical grounds for divorce: adultery and abandonment. If there is no-fault divorce, it is not actually marriage. Marriage is a divine covenantal relationship.

Continue to explore the Seventh Commandment, “You shall not commit adultery.” Consider the issue of sexuality. What is wrong with the church? All sexuality is addressed within Scripture. There are all different forms of inappropriate sexual desire - desire that is aimed for what is not what God intended. More people desire inappropriate heterosexual relationships than desire inappropriate homosexual relationships. The tacit acceptance of sexual immorality in the church, in the contexts of rampant divorce, openness to cohabitation, and failure to confront pornography sufficiently, propagates the church's problem confronting LGBT sexual immorality. It was the church who first unintentionally propagated the notion of homosexually-oriented persons as a kind of "people group" when it differentiated its response to homosexual immorality from heterosexual immorality. As the church, we must be able to love the person who is the person.

Explore the Sixth Commandment, “You shall not murder.” There is to be no ratsakh or no unlawful killing. It is more general than English murder but more specific than just "killing". This commandment clearly incorporates a value of human life. Consider that physical human life does not have the ultimate value. In the Sixth Commandment, Scripture places a high consequence on the taking of life even if it is accidental. Vengeance is prohibited, but not killing as the application of justice, and not killing as self-defense. Consider punishment and the civil punishment theory that includes deterrence, reformation, restitution, restraint, taxation, and retribution. Should the Old Testament law provide a framework for those crimes deserving capital punishment? Does the New Testament revelation prohibit capital punishment? There is not any reasonable argument from Scripture that capital punishment is immoral, and there are many arguments for its inclusion in a civil system of justice. Consider that if God gave the civil law then it cannot be contrary to the moral law. There is so much in Scripture indicating that the consequences of sin are death. Just because capital punishment can be allowed, it does not mean it should occur as often as some people would want it to. Some of the capital punishment conversations fail to comprehend the reality of economics in a lot of places in the world right now. When these laws were given there may have been times when capital punishment was the least cruel to the whole community then but would no longer be appropriate in communities in which there were more resources. Explore the topics of war and abortion. Consider Pacifism: can Christians serve in the military? Consider the Just War Theory (Frame). It is a philosophical fiction to argue about an always avoidable war. Just because there are some just wars does not mean they are all just. Is abortion murder? Is it unlawful killing? Are there exceptions? Are the woman's body rights relevant? Abortion is clearly impossible to justify. It is not just about control of the body but a reproductive control of not having a baby. How could we chose ourselves over the developing baby? The redeemed person would never make that choice. The Church has actually really strongly endorsed premarital sex in a lot of ways, not explicitly, but unintentionally. We have still presented a culture to young people in which abortion obviously happens. There is work to be done within the Church as much as there is work to be outside the Church. Something is wrong and says abortion is really bad but even worse than that is having a baby out of wedlock.

Explore the Regulative Principle of worship. Frame instructs that it means, "In worship, we should only do what God requires us to do, and we learn his requirements only from Scripture." Consider prayer, praise, and the teaching of the Word in the Regulative Principle. Is singing an element of worship? What does the teaching of the Word have to look like? Explore the Regulative Principle through the Lutheran or Anglican view; a hard Regulative Principle of worship (e.g. Psalms only); and through the elements or circumstances. Is the Regulative principle primarily prescriptive (what should be), or critical (what should not be)? Consider the subject of church worship. Scripture puts an emphasis on the body of Christ and the church as being the people. For the Regulative Principle and Anglican or Lutheran Principle, both operate identically. The things that happen in worship need to be appropriate and to be for the purpose of worshipping God. To whatever degree we can, they need to not distract us from the worship of God. Explore the topic of icons and Iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th centuries and Eastern Church. "Icon" refers to images of Jesus, Mary, or saints, and is used in worship and intercession by saints. Explore Icons as tools assisting worship versus objects of worship. Consider some Images and the modern church. Modern images can include buildings, decorations, tools and instruments in worship (music), drama, TV and internet images. Is the Second Commandment necessarily or only visual? Consider that St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, Italy was built by horrors that were visited on the people of the church in order to pay the money to get that done. Explore accessibility as an issue in relating to the church being accessible in a way that someone does not need to go to church in order to go to church. One of the ways we should worship is with what God has given us.

Continue to explore the commandment, "You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord you God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” Review what is meant by "other gods". Consider that the explicit command is “before me” and the implicit command is "Me". Explore the modern application including internal command, worship, heresy-pluralism-error, and socially acceptable hermeneutics. What would cause us to believe a heresy? Consider it would be our own understanding, reason or social acceptability. These can sometimes effectively function like gods. When we find other sources of truth besides God and we elevate them, we are in a situation effectively of having other gods before our God. Consider the example of slavery. Scripture is not entirely socially acceptable and sometimes trying to make it socially acceptable causes us to change the message of Scripture in really big ways. Consider Universalism. The indication of Scripture is that we should teach the Word so that they may be saved.

Explore the Second Commandment, “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord you God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” Consider that we cannot believe what we want to believe but what we want to believe affects what we do believe. We tend to separate what God does and what happens naturally. We have accepted a secular view of nature so if God did it, God had to do it really miraculously. Is the Second Commandment saying that all images are bad? Are pictures of Jesus bad? Consider images as teaching tools. View a picture of the statue "Homeless Jesus" by Timothy Schmalz. Consider that we get into muddy waters when we start to modify the image of Christ for particular purposes. A totally appropriate image of Jesus can become an object of worship in and of itself. Consider that all visible things can become in and of themselves worshipped.

Explore the commandment, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." Explore the context and language of this commandment and the Names and power. The term nasa means "lift up or bear", not "say". The term shav means "empty, trivial, meaningless, or false". Consider that using God's name is always an act of worship. Consider true or false worship and formal or informal worship. Frame points out four specific types of language that indicate God is there: oaths, confession, blessing, and cursing. There is no direct scriptural prohibition against curses and yet there is no context in which to utter one and be doing the right thing. In whatever sense we do blessings and we do curses, they can be appropriate or inappropriate. At some level, the prosperity Gospel's declarations are blessings that are in vain. Consider the general language can be "cussing" in general; crass, crude, or impolite ("excrement"); derogatory language ("fool"); sexual language; personal cursing; and it is word, context, and intent. Is Frame right to claim this is a Third Commandment issue? Does the Third Commandment directly teach against this kind of language? Do we really recognize that our life should always be an act of worship and everything we do should be in some sense worshipful?

Explore the commandment, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." Explore a visual of days 1-6 with labor and day 7 with rest for everyone. On the 7th day there is rest and in modern times there is worship. Consider that worship is not found there but is contemporary. Considering the Fourth Commandment, the principle question is to what degree it is ceremonial versus moral. Frame lists examples of those from a liberal to strict view of the Sabbath: Carson (et.al) viewed that the Lord's Day is not Sabbath, but all ceremonial. For Calvin the Sabbath was timed worship and intentional rest. The Council of Dort viewed Sunday as set aside for worship, so labor and distractions need to be avoided (teleological work stoppage only). Kline held two views. His later view was that the Lord's Day is a Sabbath and that labor is common and does not have to stop. Kline's earlier view was that the Lord's Day is Sabbath and primarily designed for rest. Rest is commanded in and of itself, not for the purpose of worship. The Westminster Standard set aside the whole day for public and private worship, and rest from all labors and recreation except those of necessity and mercy. Explore the practical issues including worship (formal/informal), work including personal, forced compared to paid, necessity compared to mercy, rest, and recreation. Consider that under the strictest view of the Sabbath, Jesus and the Apostles broke the Sabbath. If Christ fulfilled the Law, then that strictest interpretation cannot be accurate. The church in Scripture means the people. If the church is gathering the people are gathering. We are created for rest - it is how we are designed.

Continue to explore the Ten Commandments. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." Consider the Suzerain Treaty structure and that a covenantal relationship cannot be broken. Consider that breaking the covenant does not break the covenant but causes us to be under the curse of death. "You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord you God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Explore that the First Table of the Law is commandments 1-4 or duty to God. The First Commandment is "You shall have no other gods before Me." What are some of the things a god provides? People look to God for comfort, physical security, creation, provision, and healing (physical and spiritual). Consider that term "other gods". The explicit command is “before me”. The implicit command is "me". The explicit command is do not have any other gods before Me. The implicit command is that God needs to be at the center of all of our worship. What is the modern application? It is an internal command and we are to worship. Consider the topics of heresy, pluralism, and error. Discuss socially acceptable hermeneutics and the topic of education. (Frame is referenced). Consider that the Church is constantly trying not to look foolish and we make an idol of acceptability. The idol of acceptability causes us to say things that are in error.

Explore issues in education. Something to consider is that seminaries generally have little to say about Christian education. Is education of children mandated by Scripture? Why don't most people in a church send their children to Christian schools? Consider that public schools will always be secular and ultimately be aimed at a different goal. The homeschool movement has the very positive strength of recognizing the responsibilities that have been given by God to the individual parent. Consider that education is not the same as the work of the church. We may work in a church with a school or will work in a church with children. We need to have a thoughtful position on education. The number one way in the providence of God that people will be adults in our churches is because they were children in our church. The parents in our churches have a responsibility to see to it that their children are educated in the things of God.

Explore the Westminster Larger Catechism. “What Rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the Ten Commandments? Answer: For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed: That the law is perfect, and binds everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. That it is spiritual, and so reaches the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. That: What God forbids, is at no time to be done;: What he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. That: What is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places. That in: What is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in: What is forbidden them." Consider that by saying that the Law includes its opposite, the amount of content underneath it is broadened. Recal the possible views of the Whole Law: The Ten Commandments are the summary of the whole law; The Ten Commandments are a summary of the whole law; The Ten Commandments can be used as a summary of the whole law; or The Ten Commandments are not a summary of the whole law and should not be used as such. Explore Sin, Duty, and their Contraries. The Catechism uses the concept of duties and sins, and their opposites, to broaden the scope of the commandments. Duties regard commands and similar actions; Sins regard prohibited actions and their similar actions; Contraries are forbidden or commanded where they are not explicitly taught. Consider the broad and narrow views of the Law. The specific is the literal meaning. It is the clear meaning of the text and possibly additional meanings such as referenced by Christ in Sermon on the Mount. Consider the categorical meaning or intent application. Consider the extended meaning of the text as a summary of the law and extended application by a similar method as used in the Sermon on the Mount. Consider the literal intent, broader conceptual meaning and specific norms that loosely fit the concept.

Continue to explore the Old Testament Law and its three divisions of civil (judicial) law, ceremonial (religious) law, and moral law. The Old Testament laws of government reflect what the laws of government ought to be. What is the context of the civil law? The civil laws are not just designed to make the nation successful and rich. They are designed to maintain a visible purity and distinction from the other nations. The purpose of being set apart from other nations is not carried forward into the New Testament. Consider that the moral law expresses timeless truth. Principles within the civil law are carried forward. The ceremonial law most unproblematically carries forward. Explore Legalism and casuistry, which is to take the law and try to work out all of the laws. Consider the example of American Fundamentalism in the stance of no drinking, dancing, or gambling. There is also theonomy (hard or soft) in the example of marriage laws. Consider that Democracy is not scriptural. Is there one right choice in every situation? Explore the tragic moral choice in the decision to protect life or don't lie as in the example of those hiding Jews during WWII. One view holds that there really is law versus law conflict. For Frame, there is never law versus law conflict - there is always a right thing to do. There is only one right choice. There is an apparent contradiction because of the form of the law, not the reality of the law and the reality of the question.

Continue to explore the tragic moral choice and legalism. Consider that if we could never lie, there could be no missionaries in closed Muslim countries. Explore the idea of individual "ought" versus group restraint. Should there be a moral law or civil law divide in Christian ethics? Consider the question in light of the individual Christian, the individual non-Christian, Church discipline, the Christian school as an example of a Christian state or theocracy, and self defense and defensive war. Explore the example of Environmentalism and climate change. No one person, in and of themselves, in terms of what they are producing, can impact climate. If it is true that the climate is being impacted by people negatively, then is there a global responsibility to act differently? Consider the example of Christian schools and teleological rules. If we are being attacked and the only way to survive is to kill the attacker, is that obviously the right thing to do? Consider Antinomianism. In what sense is there no more law? Is there law in any sense? If there is no "law," is there still right and wrong, better and worse? Is consistent Antinomianism even possible? Consider Transcendent versus Immanent Antinomianism. In what sense does the Law actually go away in the New Testament? Christ elevates the Law by internalizing it. Does the fact that I cannot fulfill the Law and if the Law cannot justify me mean there is no Law at all? We can do nothing to bring ourselves closer to God's reward - it has been done for us. Colossians 3 tells us that if we keep our eyes on Christ, we will not be immoral.

Explore the three uses of the Law. The first is to reflect the nature of God and demonstrate human sinfulness and inability. Before the Fall and after the Fall there is Law. What Law is given reflects the nature of God and what Law is given demonstrates human sinfulness. We want to preach in such a way that the Law is declared so it can cause people to recognize their sinfulness. We need to be careful about the way in which we apply Law so that it does not take on an appearance of being the way in which we are justified. Consider that Law participates in the sanctification of the believer. The Law reveals God's holiness and justice in nature. The second use of the Law is in the restraint of evil. In Natural Law, there are universally true laws of morality and moral knowledge is publicly available. Natural Law does not have to be revealed in Scripture because it is revealed in nature or in us in a very specific way. Consider an argument for Natural Law. We are pre-wired to believe in the concept of ownership and to have a sense of the wrongness of theft. The issue that requires God to be in the mix is not whether or not we could all know that but the issue is if it matters. The secular response would be evolution. Evolutionary psychology makes up a narrative but there is no way to test it. The narrative of evolutionary psychology is not Natural Law any longer - it is not binding and does not matter - it is just biology and not a reflection of truth. It is a reflection of genetic uniformity. Natural Law requires revelation, truth, and a kind of theism. People uniformly believe there really is right and wrong.

Continue to explore the three uses of the Law. The third use is to reveal what is pleasing and offensive to God. We differentiate on the one hand giving the Law as what is pleasing to God in a way that is sanctifying in and of itself or much worse, and justifying in and of itself. Could there be a fourth use of the Law or be a better statement of the third use such as to reflect the nature of creation and human design? To reveal what is better and worse? Consider that not every one of the Ten Commandments would have to be what it is if God had chosen to make the world differently. The Law reflects part of how we are made. To the degree that people outside of the church and outside of knowledge of Christ obeyed God's Law, to that degree on average they would tend to have better earthly lives because God's Law reflects what they are designed for. If we really were capable of fulfilling the Law we might not ever recognize our need for Christ. We are redeemed and will go to heaven but here in this earthly life we need to behave better - it is better for the world. Consider the natural consequence of our behavior and the supernatural consequences of our actions. We should not be unwilling to see a message from God in good and bad things that happen to us but we should not try to interpret everything that happens to us as a message from God. Consider this example: If we observed a nation of fully sanctified human beings otherwise just like us, we would think there was a law they were obeying, because there would be some uniform patterns of behavior. However, this law would not bring condemnation, and it's being broken (say by a hungry person in a field on the Sabbath), would be an indication that the law follows right behavior, rather than preceding it. Because of ignorance, the Law is necessary, because of sinfulness, the Law is broken, because of grace, the Law is not final. We need the Law because we are not omniscient. Because we are sinful, even when we have the Law we break the Law. Our breaking of the Law occurs in ignorance but also in knowledge. Grace means the breaking of the Law is not final.

Continue to explore the Ten Commandments. Possible views of the whole Law include: The Ten Commandments are the summary of the whole law; The Ten Commandments are a summary of the whole law; The Ten Commandments can be used as a summary of the whole law; or The Ten Commandments are not a summary of the whole law and should not be used as such. Consider a line graph of everything that should or should not be done with the line divided into 10 segments representing the Ten Commandments. Explore the First and Second Table of the Law. The First Table is comprised of Commandments 1-4 or duty to God. The Second Table is comprised of Commandments 5-10 or duty to man. Is "the Law" really one thing, or a collection of many things? Consider the Westminster Standards.

Continue to explore Justification and Sanctification through a timeline of our lives. Inability not to sin is added to the timeline. We are guilty in Adam and can do nothing to resolve our guilt. We are broken in the Fall in substantial ways. The brokenness has borne fruit in an inability not to sin, has given us our particular sinful characteristics and habit, and has brought on to us our own personal guilt that we have earned. Is there any notion of a work that carries with it credit? We add to the timeline the Cross and salvation. After that, forensic is done. Personal guilt, forensic guilt, and Adam's debt is crossed out. For Thomas Aquinas, Justification is taking our eyes off ourselves and putting them on Christ. For Aquinas, our eyes are on our body and our minds are in submission to the desires of the flesh instead of God. Justification refers to the forensic reality. Regeneration is not forensic. Is the work of the Holy Spirit necessary for a person to be forensically declared righteous? Consider that Sanctification refers to inability and inclination and is a process. Regeneration is instantaneous but is temporal instantaneity. Is Sanctification that we are sinful but keep getting better and better? After salvation, the forensic is fixed and the substantial is in progress. Consider that in heaven, forensic and substantial are both fixed.

Explore what Saint Augustine states in his Enchiridion On Faith, Hope and Love. "Now, in whichever of these four "ages" if one can call them that the grace of regeneration finds a man, then and there, all his past sins are forgiven him and the guilt he contracted in being born is removed by his being reborn. Also it is true that "the Spirit breathes where he wills" that some men have never known the second "age” of slavery under the law, but begin to have divine aid directly under the new commandment. Yet, before a man can receive the commandment, he must, of course, live according to the flesh. However, once he has been imbued with the sacrament of rebirth, no harm will come to him even if he then immediately depart this life . . ." What do we need from God in salvation? What is our need? There are four possibilities: 1) posse non peccare, 2) non posse non peccare, 3) posse non peccare?, and 4) non posse peccare. There is original sin and guilt, personal sin and guilt, capacity for choice, and a desire or inclination in choice. For Augustine, even if Sanctification has not been worked out, guilt is removed in the moment of salvation. Faith is the means by which salvation is brought to us. What is the relationship between Sanctification and Justification? Is it a necessary condition, identical, fictitious, or a necessary consequence? Is it a given? Is carnal Christianity possible? Are there secular good works? Explore that God's work is the logically first thing. Why are we upset at the idea of the Holy Spirit working in a person's life prior to the person in and of themselves having true faith and knowledge? Where there is Justification, there is always Sanctification. If we understand Justification to mean primarily a heavenly reality, that may or may not have a moment of earthly reality, or if we think the cause of Justification has to have an earthly moment, then we will have trouble that will spread throughout our theology. The primary foundation of Justification in an individual person's life. It is a divine act - a divine will. Where is God's will on our timeline? It is outside the timeline. Do the results of God's will, the sending of the Holy Spirit and the working of faith, have to be prior to the moment the person identifies as their Justification? Consider that we do not do a good job at distinguishing the heavenly reality issues and the forensic issues from the earthly, temporal, and substantial issues.

Explore Sanctification as substantial. Consider Legalism, Antinomianism, and the Law. The Old Testament Law has three divisions: civil (judicial) law, ceremonial (religious) law, and moral law. What distinguishes one Old Testament law from another if we are Covenantal in our approach to Scripture? Consider the term “Theonomy “. Explore what is meant by the moral law. Moral laws describe what is universally right and wrong. Moral law describes how to be a worshipper of God and how to be a lover of neighbor. Ceremonial law governs the way in which Israel is to worship. Consider the Civil law and explore the example of double restitution in theft. Consider that in the particular civil law of double restitution there is moral law.

Explore Gospel and Law. Consider Justification and Sanctification. What is meant by Justification? The class suggests it means objective, forensic, an alien righteousness, not guilty, set free, and made right. What is meant by Sanctification? The class suggests it is progress, subjective, progressive conformity, dependent upon Justification and active. Consider that historically, Justification and Sanctification were viewed together. Explore the meaning of Justification as viewed by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Calvin.

Continue to explore Justification and Sanctification. The term “Justification” is used by people in different ways. Overall, Christian ethics has more to do with Sanctification than with Justification. View a timeline chart that goes from birth, the present, and to death. What does a person have at birth in relation to salvation and ability to do good? If we add conception to the timeline, we show that at conception we have brokenness (substantial) and have Adam's debt (forensic). Between birth and the present we have personal guilt (forensic) and particular sinfulness (habit/character). We need to distinguish between inclination and ability. Consider that when we talk about total depravity, we don't need to maintain complete depravity.

Explore that Sanctification can be temporally prior without being logically prior. Consider that Sanctification is not first, even if it is first. Continue to explore the relationship between sanctification and justification. On our timeline, Sanctification is a necessary consequence of Justification. But who cares and why do Justification and Sanctification matter? That is, when obedience is connected to salvation, what is being assumed about Christian Ethics? Is it true that we can never improve our standing with God by behaving better? Consider that it does matter what we do because Christian ethics is not only selfish and teleological. Begin to explore Legalism, Antinomianism, and the Law. Consider that Antinomianism reduces all of Christian ethics to it only matters if it is good for me. In Heaven, why will we do good? Will we do it willingly or by necessity? Will we do it because it is good or because it is law? Will we do it because we are good, or will we be good because we do it, or will everything we do be good by definition? As an example, good is no longer meaningful because where there is no bad, can there be good? Consider that better is not meritorious nor will it get us into heaven faster or better.

Explore incomplete ethics. Consider the appearance of ethics with purpose (major) and rule (minor). For the Utilitarian, the purpose is maximum pleasure. In Utilitarianism, as a society, what rules will produce the maximum total pleasure? Consider the appearance of ethics with purpose (major) and character (minor). Consider an ethic with the purpose of a community of love. Consider the appearance of ethics with rule (major) and character (minor). Where do rules come from? For Kant, the one thing all people recognize as good is a good will. Consider the appearance of ethics with rule (major) and purpose (minor). Explore the example of the rule, “You ought to maximize pleasure.” Consider the appearance of ethics with character (major) and rule (minor). The critique is that the more you build something in as a habit, the less it is a choice. Consider the appearance of ethics with character (major) and purpose (minor). In conclusion, we note that Christ's intent to produce an end will always be accompanied by the end actually being accomplished. Christ will always have intent and actual results united.

Explore that God caused the death of Christ for a teleological purpose. What does revealed law do? Revealed Law shows us what kind of person we ought to be. It indicates the kinds of purposes God is working towards. The Law starts to reveal and reflect something about what we are made for. Christ's purpose reminds us that law does not exist for itself. Law demonstrates the kind of person we should be (self-sacrificing, other focused, etc.) Obedience implies constraint and fulfillment implies a kind of outworking. Concerning sanctified character, law cannot be fulfilled if the heart is under compulsion. Love for God and other people unites purpose and character. Effectively, sanctification is teleological in a sense necessarily because God is the one in charge of bringing good out of the things that we do.

Commonly people will say, "There is a logical contradiction between our freedom and the predetermination of what we are going to do." Consider the account of Peter and his denial of Christ. The account contains free will, determinism and the realization of guilt. Luke 22:34,60-62 tells us, " Jesus replied, ‘I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know me’ . . .But Peter said, ‘Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!’ At that moment, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. Then the Lord turned and looked straight at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, ‘Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.’ And he went outside and wept bitterly.” What Peter did was preordained and he was obviously free and responsible. Explore the types of ethical theories. Consider that typologically-pure theories are rare! The Teleological concerns the ends or is a purpose-based ethics. The ends justify the means. For Ethical Egoism, I ought to act in such a way as to maximize my own happiness, pleasure, or well-being and minimize my own pain or suffering. Hedonism is short-term and focuses on maximizing pleasure. Drug use, especially opiates, is a kind of ultimate expression of hedonism. There has never been a thoughtful promoter of Hedonism because the hedonist would be doing drugs instead of writing a book about it. It is often thought of as "Epicurean Delights," or pure and deep pleasures. However, Epicurus was not hedonistic!!! Consider that maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain makes a kind of peaceful life that is preferred. It is ok to forgo pleasure, or even experience pain, for the sake of long-term pleasure. At its best, pleasure is a capacity to sense actual goodness, so its pursuit is actually the pursuit of the truly "good". In Psychological Egoism, human beings always do choose to act in order to maximize their own self-interest. This theory is worth knowing, but it is not an ethical theory. It is impossible to verify or falsify. Evolutionary psychology ultimately leads to a form of this theory. "Creatures act to maximize the long-term survival of their genes."

Explore Utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham states, "It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." For Bentham it means Hedonic calculus, pleasure maximization, pain minimization, no qualitative differentiation and law and government are proper. For John Stuart Mill, it means differentiated higher and lower pleasures and intellectual pleasures are superior to purely physical and transitory pleasures. Utilitarianism means, "Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Utilitarianism is not necessarily hedonistic or superficially selfish. By turning our mind to others, we might be able to maximize our happiness. It comes out looking like Christian-y British high culture is pretty great. Explore Utilitarianism's "Is" implied by "Ought" problem. It will naturally descend either into two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner or it will fake it and pull in things that do not belong. For Peter Singer, honest application of the "is" underlies the "ought". For Singer, the minimization of pain effectively is the ultimate goal of ethics. Singer asks, “What makes the pleasures of humans inherently better than those of animals?” On a truly secular atheistic worldview, there is no way to distinguish the value of a human being from the value of any other organism or any rocks down the street. There is more difference between a fish and a chimp than a human and a chimp. It is Speciesism to prefer humans. Consider the choice of pleasure between a fully developed animal and a deficient human. Singer takes seriously that in a world in which we don't have the image of God, God’s ultimate truth, or real right and wrong, and on our measurement systems, we would not get traditional morality.

How do we identify the different ethical theories? The Teleological is an ends or purpose based ethics. The ends justify the means. What does ethics look like if only defined by the goal? Consider that pure teleology produces monsters. Deontological is rule-based ethics and includes the view of Kant, religion, cults, or politics and Nihilism, atheism, or anarchism. What does ethics look like if only defined by law? If our ethical system is only about law, than it would be best fulfilled by a robot. With a Deontological ethic we only end up with machines. What does ethics look like if only defined by what kind of people we are? Lovingness with no law to guide it and no sense of what purpose is, will fall apart into doing nothing or doing whatever we want.

How can we say that Christ completely fulfilled the Law but it did not look like it was his goal to obey the Law? Consider that the Law was temporally prior in the mind of God prior to man's creation. The Law, reflecting the nature of this universe, is logically secondary to the existence of this universe. By being Christ, he would automatically fulfill the Law - it is who He is. Explore that Christ has an ability to know the full Law and the Law's intent. The Law has a purpose - it is not an end unto itself. Consider that it is not just following the law that is hard, but knowing the law in the first place is hard. Consider an incomplete ethic with character (major) and purpose (minor). If too focused on character, we have a problem in that we can't be pure people due to sin. If too focused on character, the second problem is that we are ignorant of our sin.

In what way is our will free? Libertarianism is the view that freedom is incompatible with determinism and, in fact, that humans have free wills, so there is no pre-determination of human choices. For Libertarianism, the ability to choose means that prediction or foreknowledge of what we will do is impossible. Determinism is the view that freedom is incompatible with determinism and that, in fact, human beings are not free. God, genes, or the environment determine. Compatibilism is the view that freedom is compatible with determinism. View a chart on Libertarianism showing the influence of experience, biology, environment and the Self on choice that leads to actions. (Alternatively, a libertarian position could make the self the cause of choice by reducing the reality or constancy of the self; either the real self imprecisely determines action, or the imprecise self fully determines action. Either way, there must remain an inability of the choice to be precisely anticipated given the nature of the self and the environment.) Consider for “can” there are many choices. For “would” there are many choices. View a chart on Physical (biological) Determinism that shows Biology (plus experience and environment) causing actions. This view has only an illusion of Self and Choice. (Related positions will insert God, experience (as in behaviorism) or other apparently external forces in place of biology in explaining other types of determinism. Calvin is accused of the position where biology is replaced by God, but similarly making the self illusory. Calvin knew of this accusation, and replied that he was a compatibilist.) Consider Grace and Law arguments. The work of the Holy Spirit is in us. The Holy Spirit is not in place of us. Compatibilism is the view that freedom is compatible with determinism. The three concepts are that people have free will; there is predestination; and free will and predestination are incompatible. Does Scripture anywhere indicate that free will and predestination are incompatible? View a chart on Compatibilism showing experience, biology, and environment influence or are contained under or by the Self which causes choice, which then causes actions. (This position does not avoid determinism, for the self is a concrete reality, which, while free, is not indecipherable. Thus, the choice is determined by the nature of the self (and the desires or motives therein), in accordance with the particular situation. The foundations of the concrete nature of the self are varied, but in all cases there is a real determination of choice according to the self's nature, not external, forcing factors.) In Determinism there is only one choice - it is predetermined- there is no "would". In Compatibilism there are many choices under can but only one under would. Consider the statement: “Free will is incompatible with predestination.” Consider that what we need is not more freedom but a different person who is being free.

Explore the Moral vs. Ethical. Consider that it is a slippery distinction. Explore the distinction in normal use as actual vs. theoretical and as John Frame shows in The Doctrine of the Christian Life, synonymous. Moral is how good or not good you actually are. Ethics is concerned with what you ought to be - it is more intellectual than active. Could there be a moral atheist? If moral means ultimate truth, then we can't deny God and behavior morally. Moral is what you are. Ethics is what you thoughtfully are. In terms of ultimate truth, we can't have a moral atheist. Explore “The Good”. Teleological Good refers to value for a purpose. Telos means "purpose". The Ontological Good refers to ultimate goodness. Consider that "good" was once a deeply powerful word! Which of the big three is ethics focused on? The Big Three are the “Why” or the purpose, end, and goal (telos). The “Who” is the person, character, and virtue. The “How” is the law, principle, command, and rule. Explore Frame's example of a triangle containing the person, purpose, and rule. Consider that Christian ethics has the person, purpose, and rule in it all the time.

Explore Existential Ethics, which is also called Virtue Ethics or Character Ethics. Existential Ethics is agent or situation based ethics and existential. For Aristotle, it is not good and ethical unless you do good things goodly. You must do the good with the goal of good in mind. Aristotle also focuses in on habit. Consider that spiritual disciplines as habits can be good things. Habit is a way of shaping our behavior. For Sartre, the French Existentialist (1905-1980), there is recognition of the utter meaninglessness of life. If life is utterly meaningless, the first choice is should we continue to live? For Sartre, we act before being and being arises from choices, rather than choices being determined by them. For Sartre, we act to defy habit and identity and define our selves in the moment. Sartre believed that in light of the absurdity and meaninglessness of life, why not?

Explore the goal of ethics. How ought we then to live? What are the calls to life as a Christian? Explore the word, "Is". Consider that ethics cannot be separated from reality. Any ethical theory presupposes ultimate truth, even if it is atheistic, nihilistic, or agnostic. First, consider that "Is" does not imply "ought". Just because something is some way does not mean that is how it ought to be. Examine examples in terms of genetics such as violence, alcoholism, and homosexuality. Consider that homosexuality is genetic and that as a result, the action for liberals is that it is ok and for conservatives it is not true. Consider that there is no such thing as pure one hundred percent genetic determinism. Secondly, consider that "ought" does imply an "is". An ethical statement implies something about reality. Consider the phrases, “I'm pushing my beliefs on you;” “I'm wearing stripes and polka dots;” and “2 + 2 = 5.” Does ethics stand more on what is true or more on what is norm?

Continue the discussion that ethical theory presupposes ultimate truth. Few people are willing to say there is no such thing as ethics. Where does morality come from? The moral argument in and of itself will not get us to the gospel but it opens the door to the existence of God. "Ought" is one of the fundamental terms of ethics and implies an obligation to act in a particular way. Thirdly, "Ought" implies "Can". Consider examples of “ought” in the phrases, “You ought to draw a square circle; you ought to fly home by flapping your arms; and you ought to make your bed.” There can be no ought for a logical incoherence. We cannot have an obligation we cannot fulfill. Consider that the word "Can" is a critical word for the implication of freedom of the will. Can an alcoholic in a bar not drink? Is that person responsible if they do drink? Explore the term “Would.” There are situations in which even if we can not do it, there is only one thing we would do. Free will is the statement of what can we do. If there really is no freedom of the will then there is really no responsibility.