Dr Greg Bahnsen - Normative Ethics: The Scope of Scripture; Functions of God's Law (Part 20)

Christian normative ethics. I want to take up the question of adiaphora and certain mistakes that can be made with respect to adiaphora as mistakes pertaining to the scope of the obedience required of us by God. And then I want to summarize our entire development of the theological norm for living in terms of the functions, improper and proper functions of the law. God. Now, anyway, to talk about, we have been studying for some time now the idea of there being norms, permanent absolute norms by which God expects us to live. We've been talking about obligation to do this or that or the other. And it might very easily be thought that in all of this discussion of ethical obligatoriness, we have forgotten our liberty in Jesus Christ. What has become of Christian liberty in all of this discussion? I mean, we've said that God's law covers all areas of life. God's law is permanently binding. It refers to all men and all the rest. Well, what are we to do with the fact that the Bible also lays great stress upon the liberty of the Christian man? Well, first of all, I want to respond that our liberty, and this is of primary importance, our liberty in the Bible is liberty from the bondage of sin. Romans 6 and John 8 show us that that we've been liberated from the curse of sin. Galatians 3 says, and therefore Romans 8:4 tells us we are free now to obey the law in the power of the Holy Spirit, whereas previously we were not free to do so. Our liberty is from the bondage of sin, from the curse of sin, and is a freedom unto obedience from the power of the Holy Spirit. Somebody might also respond, well, what becomes of spontaneity and openness in Christian living? Do we become hidebound individuals who just have all these rules and regulations beating down upon us? We don't really have vibrancy and vitality as Christians. What are we to make of all these rules and regulations and their permanence and their absoluteness? What has happened to our spontaneity, our openness? Where is the liberty of the Christian? That has been the battle cry of the Protestant Reformation. Well, if you speak of the Protestant Reformation, as a matter of fact, the battle cry and the real issue has always been liberty from the religious ordinances of men. The liberty of the Christian man has been liberty from the will worship, the external or humanistic law of men, that is external demands to the law of God. Men's laws that go beyond God's laws. Audiophram in one sense can amount to Christian liberty from any superior moral authority. But that of God speaking explicitly in his word. Odiaphora can amount to Christian liberty from any superior moral authority to God speaking explicitly in his word. Ethical and religious norms, you see, have a sublime independence from human opinion. Just stop and think about Moses before Pharaoh. Think about Elijah before Ahab. Think about Elijah in the face of the priest of baal. Think about Isaiah before Ahab and Paul before Agrippa or Felix or Festus. There, you see, we see free men, men who are able to pit the word of God against any outside authority, as Peter could declare the face of the Sanhedrin. We must obey God rather than men. Christians belong to another kingdom, they belong to another city. They march to another drummer, if you will. Sometimes this liberation can make us as Christians, very lonely men. To be sure, sometimes we're forced to stand alone, to stand against the crowd, to be out Jackson, I mean, rejected by men and outcasts from society. But Scripture sees us as very properly in that light, as pilgrims and strangers. And so Christian freedom can amount to liberty from any superior moral authority but that of God speaking explicitly in His Word. That isn't to say that we aren't to be subject to the ordinances of men for the Lord's sake sake, but we are only to be subject to the ordinances of men in those areas where God has empowered them, where God has granted them authority to rule over our lives. And even then we never submit to an ordinance of man in the sense of an ultimate authority over us. We never submit to the ordinances of men as though they rule over our lives in an ultimate sense. We are always to imitate the freedom of Christ, that freedom that he displayed in his testimony before Pilate and the freedom that he showed in his majestic silence before Herod, Jesus was free to oppose the will of the state by the will of God, and free also in that he could submit to every ordinance of men for the Lord's sake. Well, so we talked about Christian freedom in two Christian liberty in two senses. One is our liberty from the bondage of sin. Secondly is our liberty from the religious ordinances of men. But then thirdly, we come to a sense for Christian liberty that has often been denoted by the word adiaphora. Adiaphora literally means things indifferent. There are certain areas, certain things that are supposed to be indifferent to Christian ethics. The problem is that there's a real ambiguity here. On the one hand, it isn't saying anything very significant to claim that certain objects or things, neuter, plural, adiaphora, that certain things are morally indifferent, because after all, Objects can't have any moral value in themselves anyway. Only persons are moral or immoral. And in the sense of persons and situations which are moral and immoral, everything we do has moral significance. Nothing is morally indifferent. So that even eating an orange is not a matter of moral indifference. For Paul says, whether you eat or drink or whatever you do all to the glory of God in your ethics syllabus. Mr. Frame pursues various senses of the term adiaphora and he starts whittling down this term so we can get some concrete and non trivial sense for it. A significant sense for adiaphora, but one which isn't dealt with very simply by saying, well, everything has moral significance. Adiaphora becomes acts which Scripture neither commands nor prohibits. That isn't to say that Scripture is totally indifferent to any act. But there are certain acts that Scripture does not command or forbid. For instance, eating an orange. The Bible's not indifferent to the way you eat an orange, the motivation for eating an orange, the goal in eating an orange. But although the Bible is not indifferent about certain matters, it doesn't command you to eat oranges or forbid you to eat oranges. And therefore oranges might come in the area that has been called things indifferent or adiaphora. Now, a proper understanding of adiaphora requires that we recognize two fundamental principles in biblical ethics. One is the ubiquity of ethics and the other is the sufficiency of Scripture. First, the ubiquitous of ethics. According to God's Word, everything a man does is a moral action. It is done either in conformity to God's standards or in violation of those standards. A man's outward behavior may not be explicitly discussed, that is a particular act like eating an orange. But the motivation and the contemplated end of his behavior is always governed by or done in violation of certain universal moral dictates. And therefore whatever a man does is governed by the directions of God's Word. So the ubiquity of ethics, everything we do has ethical significance. On the other hand, Scripture also teaches that all the moral direction needed by a Christian is to be found in the Bible itself. The Christian need not come under extra biblical moral rule, such as those of the Judaizers or the Colossian heretics that are spoken of by Paul. God alone is Lord of the conscience and the final judge of all morality. All that he expects of men can be found in or derived from his self revelation in Scripture. Therefore, and thus the Christian is never without the ethical direction he needs for any situation. He can even take a decided stand against those commands of men which contradict the moral direction of God. So those two principles are the governing principles of adiaphora, the ubiquity of ethics and the sufficiency of Scripture for all moral matters. The question of how to deal with adiaphora becomes acute when sincere Christians come to different conclusions with respect to some particular, particular kind of action. What do we do when one Christian says don't eat meat offered to idols and the other says it's perfectly alright to do so? What do we do when one Christian says nobody should smoke tobacco and another Christian says we are free to do so to gain scriptural principles and direction in the things indifferent, then I think it's appropriate to go to those places in God's word which deal with this kind of issue in the most intense form. In those places will be Romans the 14th chapter and 1st Corinthians 8:10. In Romans 14, Paul deals with the problem arising from the difference in opinion among Christians over the moral status of eating certain meats. Both parties in this different of opinion are Christians accepted by God. Verse 3 says, but one thinks that eating meats is perfectly all right, while the other thinks it is unethical. Now in this situation Paul does not attempt to strike an Aristotelian golden mean between the disagreeing parties. Instead, he firmly applies both the sufficiency of Scripture for ethics and the principle of the ubiquity of ethics. Paul's main point in Romans 14 can be summarized in this the Lord alone is ethical judge. The Lord alone is ethical judge. Paul makes it quite clear that the Lord is the one unto whom we live in verse 8 and that Christ was crucified and resurrected to become the Lord over all persons. Consequently, a man is not his own belligerent moral Authority, as verse 7 shows us, free to do whatever he pleases irrespective of others. Yet neither is a man under the moral dominion and judgment of others. Verse 10 says, the point is, that Christ alone is the ethical Lord and judge, and that the ethical account we have to give is going to be before God that we give it. Now from this certain important points can be drawn with respect to the adiaphora. First, the man who can eat all things and regard all days alike is strong, but the others with scruples are weak in faith. Verses 1 and 2 point that out. Consequently, Paul is siding with the stronger. He is persuaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. Verse 14 at the beginning of the verse and so it comes. It cannot be said that eating meat is immoral There are no other commands to be observed but those found in God's revelation in Scripture. So indeed, the stronger believer is right. All things are pure. However, there is more to the issue than the intrinsic indifference of eating meat. Because the Lord alone is judge in ethics. The man with scruples must be obedient to his command conscience. He must not be bullied into what he considers disobedience by the conscience of the stronger brother. The stronger brother is not the ethical Lord. Jesus alone is the Lord. So if any man esteems something unclean, it is unclean for him to partake of it, since if he partook of it, he would evidence the spirit of rebellion. He thinks it's wrong, and yet he's done it anyway. It is offense when that man eats what he considers evil. Paul says in verse 20. And so he is damned if he eats it. Verse 23 says, Even though he doesn't think it's evil, I mean, even though it's not in fact evil, if he thinks it is, it's damnable for him to do it because he does it in a sinful spirit. So a man must be convinced within himself that he is not condemned for that which he allows himself to do. And for that reason the weak cannot lord it over the strong, telling him not to eat, and the strong cannot lord it over the weak, trying to make him violate his conscience. And from these things we see that no one is to judge the other brother. Verses 10 and 13. Only Christ has the prerogative to judge the other. Therefore the weak must not condemn the strong, because behavior and the strong must not despise the weak person's abstinence. Verse 3. God, remember, has received both of these people. Verses 3 and 15. Consequently, this calls for a mutual love, doesn't it? Especially this means that the strong should care and watch out for the spiritual health of the weak. He, as the strong, should strengthen the weak by teaching the Lord's law. He should not present an occasion for stumbling to the weaker brother, Or even for the further weakening of the brother, that he should watch out for stumbling and weakening. He should aim at helping the brother to grow into maturity. And if this means that he abstains from meat so that he doesn't present a destructive bad witness in the weaker brother's eyes, then he must abstain. If the weaker brother will be led to violate his conscience, seeing the stronger brother eat, and therefore being in a sense encouraged to do it even though he can't do it in good faith, then it would be better for the Stronger, brother, not to eat at all. With such mutual respect and love loving concern, the Church can follow Paul's exhortation to follow after peace and to be edified. Verse 19 says, in all this whatever is done must be done unto the Lord. Verse 6 says, and before God. So let's conclude here about Romans 14 that it shows us that God alone determines what actions are right and wrong, that all things are in themselves pure, that God alone is ethical, Lord and judge, that faith, love, and peace are principles governing all that we do, and that these in turn require mutual edification and respect among differing parties. What is expected of all you see is that their actions be to God's glory, and those are biblical principles governing the adiaphora. Let me say them again. God alone determines what actions are right and wrong. All things are in themselves pure. God alone is ethical, Lord and judge. Faith, love, and peace are principles governing all that we do and that mutual edification and respect must be exercised among differing parties about matters of adiophora. Now, in 1 Corinthians, Corinthians 8:10, the same basic principles are found. The question in that passage is meat offered to idols? And Paul resolves the difference of opinions between the believers by pointing again to God's lordship and the need for mutual love. He says, first of all, an idol is nothing in this world, and God alone is Lord, who can enforce the sanctions of the covenant. With verses 5 and 6, God can punish and bless for improper eating of his supper, but an idol, an idol cannot. Eating the idol's meat doesn't establish a union with the idol, doesn't threaten us with punishment from the idol for eating and unbelief. Paul says in verse 8, therefore it is what God thinks that counts in ethics, and not what idols or others say about idols. And here we see the sufficiency of Scripture for ethics being endorsed. And thus Paul condones the eating of idolatrous meat. It can't hurt to eat idolatrous meat. Idols are nothing in this world. However, there's more to be taken into account. Paul says knowledge may puff up, but love will lead us to edification. Verse 1. While we may be allowed to do all things, not everything is expedient. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient. Paul said. For example, Paul as an apostle is free to do many things and could require his rights from others, but he willingly refrains from his rights for the sake of the church. Chapter Chapter 9 shows that he refrains from taking his salary from the church. Thus, while The Christian may be free from all men and their extra scriptural requirements. He is in another sense also the servant of all men so that he can gain them for Christ. So we do not seek our own profit as Christians. We rather seek the profit of the many that they may be saved. For that reason, we should refrain from eating idolatrous meat, even if we know that it's all right to do it in itself. We should refrain from eating idolatrous meat when it will be a spiritual detriment to our brother. Paul's rhetorical question is probing through your knowledge. Shall the weaker brother perish for whom Christ died died? Verse 11 is really pointed. You know that it's all right. But should you make your brother perish because of your knowledge, the answer must be no, you mustn't. The man who has scruples should not defile his conscience. Verse 7 says, for to eat idolatrous meat without being convinced it is all right is to do so in the spirit of disobedience. And thus he would in a spirit be joined to the idol by that meat. Rather, whatever is done, eating or drinking, whatever it is, the Christian must keep in mind the glory of God. And therefore adiathora is governed in Scripture by God's ethical lordship, God's glory, the spirit of self sacrifice and brotherly love, and the goal of edification. Now there's one more passage we can look at to gain biblical principles governing the Christian's use of adiaphora. That passage is 1st Timothy 4:1:5. Paul says that some will come in latter days who speak devil's doctrine. They shall try to deprive the believer of his liberty by forbidding things and requiring abstinence. The Christian perspective which governs these doctrines of devils, Paul says, is that all things have been created by God and are thus good. All things in themselves are good. Therefore the believer can receive all things, and nothing is to be refused. However, there is a particular way in which this freedom is to be exercised. All things must be thankful or set aside by God's word. That is, the use of everything must be governed by the law and must be directed by God's law, set aside by God's word. And Paul says, set aside by prayer, used in reverence with a regenerated heart in relation to God. Everything is good in itself, and everything can be used if it's used as governed by the word of God and a prayerful attitude. Consequently, the adiaphora show the Christian that he has liberty under God in prayer and thanksgiving, and liberty within the Law. All things must be used in God's service and done out of a proper motivation so that the goal and motive supplement the requirement of the law. Notice in 1 Timothy 5 that it's the false teachers who teach abstinence. Notice in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8:10 that it's the weaker brother who teaches abstinence. False teachers and weak brothers teach abstinence. The Bible sides against them. The Bible says we can make use of things like alcohol or tobacco, provided there's no definitive case, like in the case of tobacco, against no definitive case that shows the health injurious results for our health in partaking. Obviously, you have to live under all the rules of Scripture. And if one of those rules is violated, for instance, we are not protecting innocent human life by smoking, then we are under obligation as a derivative principle of Scripture to avoid these things. But apart from that sort of thing, we. We can accept anything, even meat offered to idols, as long as it's used with thanksgiving and prayer and set apart by the word of God. But when there is a weaker brother who doesn't yet see this, and he's going to be led to violate his conscience, and by the way, violation of his conscience stumbling does not mean that he's upset with us, that he's indignant that we do these things. After all, his indignance just reinforces his unwillingness to engage in such an activity. So he's not being led to sin, he's not being made to stumble, he's not being ensnared by our example. But when a weak brother would be ensnared, might be led to take a drink, even though he's a reformed alcoholic and he knows that that is something that will lead him astray, something that violates his conscience. If our example will in fact lead him to sin and ensnare him, then out of love and the goal of edification, we must be willing to sacrifice our own right. Paul always sides with the stronger believer. He sides against those teaching abstinence, and yet he teaches self sacrifice, showing that we should be willing to give up our rights for the goal of edifying our fellow Christian and keeping him from being ensnared by sin. Any questions you want to pursue on Adiaphora? Christian liberty is understood, remember, in three ways. Liberty to keep the law, liberty from the commandments of men. Liberty in the sense of Adi offering. We've been given these principles. Go ahead. Yeah, I think the use of alcoholic beverages is a legitimate example of Odeophora. There's Nothing in the Bible that says you have to use alcoholic beverages. Nothing in the Bible that forbids you to do so, although it does forbid immoderation or drunkenness. And it would be perfectly alright for a Christian to use alcoholic beverages within the guidelines of of scripture, provided the use of the alcoholic beverage did not lead a fellow Christian who doesn't understand that as yet to violate his conscience by taking a drink out of deference to the fact that my friend is doing it even though I think it's wrong. Well there the question is, is marijuana an example of Adiaphora? Marijuana is an example of something that is good in itself and we shouldn't reject it. That's out of hand. You know, say, oh, all uses of marijuana are wrong. There may be the technological and medical uses of marijuana for rope or certain medicines that would be perfectly all right. But the smoking of marijuana, if that is detrimental to one's health and leads to drunkenness, must be rejected. Even if other people say, well, it's not bad for me because there are absolute principles governing that. But it doesn't seem to me marijuana very easily falls into the realm of audiosis alright for some people and it's all right for everybody, provided it's not abused. It seems to me that marijuana does have detrimental health effects and people lose self control. Well, if people think it's terrible to do something and they're wrong, it's not really terrible to do it. You don't have to refrain from doing it just because they think it's terrible. And you don't have to refrain from it even if they become indignant. You only have to refrain from it if you're partaking will lead them to partake and violate their conscience. Well, we've had a lot of material presented in these 20 hours of lectures on normative ethics. And what I'd like to do is to end the course just with a real simple summary of the functions of God's word, especially God's law. The functions, this is by way of summary. Now the whole course. Notice in the first place that there are various roles for the law of God in the history of redemption. There are various roles for God's law in his redemption. First, in the state of innocence, God's word, obedience to God's word and law would have led to life and God's favor. Personal righteousness would have led to Adam's justification and confirmation. In his state of blessedness, disobedience. His personal disobedience would have led to death and curse. So the law was aware of justification in the state of innocence. But secondly, under man's fallen state, the state of sin, condemnation, and death, men are under the wrath of God. And obedience as a way of personal justification is contrary to God's gracious justification by faith. Therefore, law works lead to death. According to Paul, when man is in that condition, only imputed obedience to the law can bring salvation to an individual. But then, thirdly, after there's been a transition to the state of grace in the life of a Christian, he's moved back into the realm of life again. And life and righteousness are inseparable in the Bible, so that sanctified obedience is now demanded. And sanctified obedience can bring further favor from God. But we have to be careful that we distinguish the various stages in man's the stage of innocence, the fallen state, and then the transition to grace, because the law plays different parts in each one. The law was a way of justification in the first stage, but never again in the second stage. The law is a way of death. Law works. Trying to save yourself is a way of death. The third stage is still not a way of justification, but it is a way to further blessing from God. So the first point is distinguish the various roles of the law in the history of redemption. My second point is to list what the law is unable to do. What the law is unable to do. Certain things the law does not perform for us. One, the law for us today does not justify those who are under its curse. The law cannot justify those under the curse. Secondly, the law cannot relieve the bondage of sin and thereby enable our obedience to the law. The law does not supply the power to keep the law. Thirdly, the law does not motivate us to seek out our responsibilities and to give up our own lives for the sake of others. The law still does not do the work of love, although love and law will lead to the same thing. Love is a distinctive and provocative characterization of our moral duty. Fourth, the law does not show us our concrete duty today without our having a factual understanding of our situation and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The law does not stand alone. The law doesn't tell us whether to drain the swamp down the street or not. And fifth, the law does not in itself tell us the priorities that should govern our own individual lives. Some people specialize in evangelism, some specialize in counsel. Some specialize in preaching and exhortation. Some specialize as plumbers, some as bakers. The law of God applies to all of these. God's gracious justification by Faith, therefore, law works lead to death. According to Paul, when man is in that condition, only imputed obedience to the law can bring salvation to an individual. But then, thirdly, after there's been a transition to the state of grace in the life of a Christian, he's moved back into the realm of life and again. And life and righteousness are inseparable in the Bible. So that sanctified obedience is now demanded. And sanctified obedience can bring further favor from God. So we have to be careful that we distinguish the various stages in man's the stage of innocence, the fallen state, and then the transition to grace, because the law plays different parts in each one. The law was a way of justifying justification in the first stage, but never again in the second stage. The law is a way of death. Law works. Trying to save yourself is a way of death. The third stage is still not a way of justification, but it is a way to further blessing from God. So the first point is distinguish the various roles of the law in the history of redemption. My second point is to list what the law is unable to do, what the law is unable to do. Certain things the law does not perform for us. One, the law for us today does not justify those who are under its curse. The law cannot justify those under the curse. Secondly, the law cannot relieve the bondage of sin and thereby enable our obedience to the law. The law does not supply the power to keep the law. Thirdly, the law does not motivate us to seek out our responsibilities and to give up our own lives for the sake of others. The law still does not do the work of love, although love and law will lead to the same thing. Love is a distinctive and provocative characterization of our moral duty. Fourth, the law does not show us our concrete duty today without our having a factual understanding of our situation and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The law does not stand alone. The law doesn't tell us whether to drain the swamp down the street or not. And fifth, the law does not in itself tell us the priorities that should govern our own individual lives. Some people specialize in evangelism. Some. Some specialize in counsel. Some specialize in preaching and exhortation. Some specialize as plumbers, some as bakers. The law of God applies to all of these people. But the law cannot tell us what the predominance should be or what is the most relevant thing for a particular situation in my life. So the law does have certain inabilities. It cannot justify, cannot empower obedience, cannot provocatively lead me to do the Things that love would do, cannot show my concrete duty without an understanding of the world, and cannot tell me the priorities and the relevance of things pertaining to my situation in life. Thirdly, I'd like to summarize the unlawful uses of the law, that is doing things with the law which the law itself does not teach or which it actually forbids. Unlawful Uses of the Law the first unlawful use would be substituting man's law for God's, that is Humanistic autonomy as a violation of the law. Secondly, it's unlawful to supplement God's word with human tradition that thereby nullify God's word. Another unlawful approach to the law is antinomianism, believing that you can be determined determined by the Holy Spirit without looking at the written law of God. Another unlawful approach to the law is subtle antinomianism, saying that we don't have to heap the whole law if it seems unreasonable to us. Subtle antinomianism works through unbiblical compartmentalization of the law into civil and moral categories, for instance, or modal spheres. It works through extraneous hermeneutical principles such as the one that says a law is not binding if it's not mentioned in the New Testament. And it works through disregarding of detail, saying we only keep the decalogue and not the civil laws of the Old Testament. A fifth unlawful approach to the law of God is a self righteous rationalization or self justification of our disobedience. Sixth, an unlawful use of the law would be trying to use the law as a way of personal salvation, as the Pharisees and Judaizers did. Seventh, an unlawful approach would be to worship the law apart from God and His glory and purposes, that is to abstract the law from the lawgiver. And finally, an unlawful approach to the law is that of ignoring it and disobeying it. That is just outright rebellion against the law. These then are the unlawful uses of the law, what the law is not supposed to do under any circumstances. Fourth, by way of summary, let me explain six different forms of legalism. When the word legalism is used, we should use it either to be speaking of justification by works of the law. That would be legalism or sanctification by self effort. The idea that I can obey God apart from the Holy Spirit. That too is a form of legalism. Legalism can apply to following the ceremonial laws after the coming of Christ or ceremonialism. Legalism. Legalism pertains also to the external following of the law apart from heartfelt righteousness and obedience, or if you will Pharisaism. Fifthly, the word legalism can apply to will worship following the requirements of human regulations that go beyond the word of God. And then finally, legalism could be used also for making what is merely sinful and therefore punished only by God into something which is criminal and thereby punished by the state. It's legalistic to allow the state to punish overeating, for instance. So what do we mean by legalism? We mean either justification by works, sanctification by self effort, ceremonialism or externalism, will worship, or turning sins into crimes. So we've now seen the various roles of the law in the history of redemption. We know what the law is unable to do. We know what the law ought not to do, unlawful uses or attitudes to the law. We know what legalism is. And finally, I want to mention lawful uses of God's law. Paul says in first Timothy, chapter one, verses three to eight, that the law is good if it is used lawfully, that is according to its ordinary purpose. What should the law do? Well, here are the proper uses of the law, what it ought to do and what it can do. First, it declares the holy character of God for us. Secondly, it propounds God's will, demands and commands. It propounds the will of God. Third, it pronounces approval and blessing on our obedience. Fourth, it defines sin. Fifth, it condemns every infraction against it. Sixth, it exposes and convicts us of sin. Seventhly, the Bible says it incites rebellion by aggravating our disobedience to more virulent transgressions. The seventh, it drives us to Christ for salvation. Eighth, it guides our sanctification into the power of the Holy Spirit. And ninth, it is used to restrain public and personal evil in our lives and the lives of men in our society. So there we see the unlawful and now the lawful uses of God's law. All of these remarks on the functions of the law in the three stages of the redemption, what the law cannot do, unlawful attitudes toward the law, the uses of the word legalism, and then finally the lawful uses of the law. All this is by way of summary, but I'd like to give to you two statements which in even briefer form summarize all that I've been saying about the necessity and the sufficiency and the unity of God's Word as the Christians norm for living. So please get this in your notes. And what have we been saying here in a very pregnant sense can be put this in ethics. We must go to God's law. Only God's law and all of God's law. I'll say it again in ethics, we must go to God's Law, only God's Law and all of the God's Law. By saying we must go to God's Law, I'm referring to the necessity of God's Word and His Law for ethics. In saying we go only to God's Law, I'm referring to the sufficiency of God's Word for ethics. And by saying that we go to all of God's Law, I'm stressing the unity of revelation in ethics, either the unity between special and general revelation, or the unity between Old and New Testament. So again, in summary of all that I've taught, it can be put this in ethics. We must go to God's law, only God's Law and all of God's law. Then one other thing to be added to this, pointing out the three deadly dichotomies that afflict normative ethics for most Christians. Three deadly dichotomies. We can say that God's Word covers all of life by all of the Word in all of its textual details. God's Word covers all of life by all of the Word and all of its textual details. And to just give a little insight on each one of those phrases, God's Word covers all of life. And thereby we don't hold to a nature grace dichotomy, as though the Word governs the area of grace but not the area of nature. Secondly, God God's Word covers all of life by all of the Word. We don't hold to a law grace dichotomy, or an Old Testament, New Testament dichotomy. We go to all of the Word. So we are Biblical Christians, not just New Testament Christians. And finally, God's Word covers all of life by all of the Word in all of its textual details. We don't pit Spirit against letter or the thrust of the teaching against the details of the teaching or the tenor versus the text of God's Word. We go to all of the textual details and pay attention to them. So the Christian approach to normative ethics, to put it all together, is that in ethics we must go to God's Law, only God's Law and all of God's law. For God's Word covers all of life by all of the Word in all of its textual details. That then is the norm for Christian living. Thank you.