This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute. Duplication, sharing and distribution is encouraged. For more information about the life and ministry of Dr. Greg L. Bonson, visit our website, www.bonsoninstitute.com, where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. At the end of last hour, I had pointed out that the New Testament does teach the voluntary abstinence from meats and voluntary abstinence from marital relations for a brief period for the sake of not making a brother stumble or for the sake of prayer. However, the New Testament clearly teaches that meats and sex are not to be categorically denied, not altogether deprecated as somehow less than holy. In this regard, I would remind you that Paul, even as the Old Testament, actually commands the use of alcoholic beverage. In 1 Timothy 5.23, he tells Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake. In John 2, we read a fascinating story about Jesus going to the marriage at Cana, Galilee. At the marriage feast, remember that they ran out of wine. That was quite an embarrassment in those days, quite a situation of social awkwardness, and so Mary, the mother of our Lord, comes to Jesus, and in the situation, Jesus actually provides upwards of 90 gallons or so, which is a lot of wine, and the Bible says it was the best wine as well. The maitre d' there, the master of ceremonies, whatever, the person who was heading up the festivities, was amazed because they had brought out the best wine at the end, which you don't ordinarily have to do because by the time people have had a little bit of wine, then senses or taste buds, if you will, are not as sensitive. And so what we learn here is that Jesus found it appropriate to supply to people a humongous amount of very good alcoholic beverage for the sake of this wedding festivity. So the Bible clearly does not teach abstinence from drink, from alcoholic beverage, it doesn't teach abstinence from sex, it does not teach abstinence from meat. The Bible has a very world-affirming attitude in these matters. Paul tells us that singleness is a gift, a special ability, a grace that God bestows, not the sort of thing that one should expect It's not the norm, if you will, it's not the ordinary condition for a man's life. 1 Corinthians 7, verse 7, "'Yet I would that all men were even as myself, albeit each man has his own gift from God, one after this manner and another after that.' Paul says, I could see advantage if all men were single and could devote themselves wholeheartedly in all their times to the kingdom. Each man has his own gift. Some have the gift for being single. Some have the gift for not being married, but others don't. In Matthew 19, verse 12, Jesus teaches the same thing when he talks about people who willingly make themselves eunuchs, and I don't believe that he's speaking in a literal or physical way, but those who behave as eunuchs, not having sexual relations. So there are eunuchs that were so, born from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs that were made eunuchs by men. and there are eunuchs that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Jesus speaks of those who are able to, for the sake of the kingdom of God, not engage in sexual relations in that way, to be eunuchs and advance God's kingdom. We might also want to note that when Paul speaks of the advantages of virginity in 1 Corinthians 7, he is speaking specifically for the adverse times of tribulation that are coming upon the Church. Paul is not giving an axiomatic principle that he sees as applicable to the Church in all ages, for all times. 1 Corinthians 7, verse 25. Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my judgment as one that has obtained mercy of the Lord, to be trustworthy. I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that that it is good for a man to be as he is, for reason of the distress that is upon us." Paul says there are advantages to being single, being in the virgin condition. This examination of various instances points out to us that the New Testament encourages abstinence from comforts and pleasures very little. Where it does, it's always for some other purpose rather than just the sake of denying earthly matters. The New Testament's positive attitude, rather than one of abstinence, is the attitude of temperance and self-control. Temperance and self-control. The word temperance, very quickly, needs a remark. Temperance does not mean abstinence. That is precisely what the word has come to mean in the temperance movement. The temperance movement has not meant be temperant in your use, moderate in your use of alcohol. It's meant don't use alcohol at all. That's one of those real outstanding examples of a misnomer in history. The temperance movement is an abstinence movement, as a matter of fact. But the New Testament does teach the attitude of temperance and self-control. Galatians 5, verse 23, Paul says, as part of the fruit of the Spirit, The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, love, suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control, against which there is no law. In 2 Peter 1, 6, and in your knowledge, add self-control and in your self-control, patience. Self-control is part of another list of Christian virtues. In Titus 2, verse 2, Titus 2, 2, that age of men be temperate, grave, sober-minded, sound in faith and love and patience." So here's the virtue of being temperate. So the attitude of self-control and temperate is taught by the Bible, and you notice that this is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. I think probably the reason Paul emphasizes that it's the Holy Spirit that brings temperance, moderation, self-control, is because both the Greek and Roman world had an ideal of self-control. That was one of the virtues. of the good man's life, one of the ideals that he should accomplish, but in the Greek and Roman world, the man accomplished that virtue by his own self-effort. It was by his own discipline, by his own determination, by his own prowess, if you will, that he becomes a man that has self-control and temperance. Therefore, self-control was always the stepping stone to pride in Greek and Roman ethics. The big-souled man, to literally translate the word, the big-souled man, the man who is proud, the man who can boast, achieves that condition through having the virtues that are laid out in ethics, and one of those virtues is self-control. Self-control means that you can also exalt yourself. You can boast in yourself. Paul says, however, self-control comes by the Holy Spirit, by the grace of God, and not in our own strength. And he opposes this fruit of the Holy Spirit of self-control to the lack of self-control in drunkenness, Ephesians 5, verse 18. And be not drunken with wine wherein is riot, but be filled with the Holy Spirit. For to be filled with the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit includes self-control, and thereby we will not be drunken with wine, with hard drink. And when a person, a Christian, has the Holy Spirit working in his life to produce temperance and self-control, producing the fruit of the Spirit, the Spirit will also produce sensitivity to the needs of others. And that sensitivity is an avenue for abstinence, an avenue for asceticism. Romans 14, verse 13 through 15. A well-known passage about the weaker brother. Romans 14, verse 13. Let us not therefore judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brother's way or an occasion of falling. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself, save that to him who accounts anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." For if because of meat your brother is grieved, you walk no longer in love. Destroy not thy meat, him for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil-spoken up. For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Notice that these are all virtues in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives the sensitivity so that you won't put a stumbling block in your brother's way. For he that herein serves Christ is well-pleasing to God and approved of men. So then let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another. Overthrow not for meat's sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean, howbeit it is evil for that man who eats with offense. It is good not to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby your brother stumbles. The faith which you have, have you to yourself before God. Happy is he that judges himself in that which he approves. But he that doubts is condemned, because he eats not of faith, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Now we that are strong are to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." You see, there is a skepticism, don't please yourself, self-denial. Let each one of us please his neighbor for that which is good and edifying, for Christ also pleased not himself. So the Holy Spirit gives sensitivity to the needs of others, and that sensitivity might lead us to abstinence. to not eating meat for the sake of a weaker brother. Another form of sensitivity in Amos 4, verse 1, and Amos 6, verses 4 to 7, although there is nothing wrong with enjoying the pleasures of life in the physical world, nevertheless notice that Amos says, that lie upon beds of ivory and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall, that sing idle songs to the sound of the vial, that invent for themselves instruments of music like David, that drink wine in bowls and anoint themselves with cheap oils, that they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph." You see, there is something desperately wrong with enjoying the pleasures of life to excess when it amounts to oppressing the poor. so that those who are afflicted around you are either deprived of things or are not having things shared with them out of the goodness of your heart. When excess is practiced at the expense of the poor, then, it's something that the Bible condemns. So the Holy Spirit gives us moderation and temperance that we will not be drunk with wine, that we will not offend the weak of brother, and that we will not enjoy life at the expense of others and in the face of their deprivation. You know, perhaps it's more difficult to exhibit these qualities of temperance and self-control, more difficult to show those qualities than even the quality of endurance in the Christian life in the face of persecution. You see, endurance is a quality a Christian develops in response to external tribulation. It seems to me it's much easier for somebody to grit his teeth and bear up under external tribulation than to reign under and control those temptations that come from within. Endurance is a fine quality in a Christian, but those internal forces and desires that lead us astray are especially difficult to bear up under because, you see, they usually relate to an acquisitive action. For instance, where people lack self-control, lack temperance, is often in things like eating, drinking, and sexual relations. That's where people go to accept most readily. And that's because those things are all, as you'll notice, matters of acquiring for oneself. Okay? Food, drink, and sex. And just because they are acquisitive in character, they cater to the core selfishness, which we call sin. You see, I think sin is all the more desperate in a man in these internal acquisitive tendencies toward eating and drinking and sexual relations. It's easy enough to go to the other extreme, too. What I've been saying is it's very hard to control yourself so that you have a moderate lifestyle, but it's also hard to avoid going to the other extreme, which people find easy to fall into, that they pride themselves secretly in the superior form of piety they have because they have deprived their bodies. And it takes very well of themselves because they don't eat the way other people eat and don't engage in sexual excess as other people do and are not drawn aside by these things like other people are. And so you have pride on the one hand and selfishness on the other, both which are self-centered sins, aren't they? Pride and selfishness are, yeah, selfishness and pride both being self-centered. And so you see the value of moderation is that you don't utterly deny all these things so you can think that you're of some superior, pious order than others, but on the other hand you don't indulge yourself in these things to excess, just pleasing yourself and living for the sake of your own belly, if you will. So there is the value of moderation produced by the gracious work of the Holy Spirit. Let me summarize. The Christian attitude is an attitude that is both world-affirming and world-denying. The Christian attitude is world-affirming in one sense and world-denying in another. How are we world-affirming as Christians? I can see three ways that we are world-affirming. First, the world is created by God. John 1, verse 3 tells us that all things were made by him, and Colossians 1, verse 16 tells us that all things were made for the sake of Jesus Christ. All things were made for his benefit. And since the world was created by God and created for Jesus Christ, it's no surprise that Genesis 1, verse 31 says that the world was created good, and God surveyed all that he had made and pronounced it good. So we are world-affirming. as the world is good, creation is a good realm, receiving the benediction, the favorable evaluation of the creator himself. Moreover, the world and history was the sphere, this is the second reason that we're world affirming, was the sphere of the incarnation and God's redemptive action. The very strongest arguments that the world and the physical world is good is that Jesus became incarnate. God's own Son could take on a physical body. John 3.16, John 4.42, and Ephesians 1.10. Let's look at Ephesians 1.10 here. Ephesians 1.10 says, unto a dispensation of the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, So Jesus, you see, is going to be the goal and the summary of all things, even the things on the earth are brought into the sphere of redemption. In Revelation 11-15, the kingdoms of this world are made the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ. This world is the sphere of redemptive action, and therefore we must affirm this world. Moreover, the Bible, this is the third reason we're world-affirming, the Bible does not teach a metaphysical dualism. The Bible does not teach that there are two major spiritual forces of equal power and eternity, God and Satan, if you will, a power of light and a power of darkness, the realm of spirit and the realm of matter. The Bible does not teach metaphysical dualism. Remember that when Satan wanted to tempt Job, Satan had to come to God and request that permission from God. In Colossians 2, we read that Jesus has openly triumphed over the principalities and powers. In Revelation 20, we read that Christ has bound Satan and in the future will cast him into the lake of fire. So the Bible doesn't teach metaphysical dualism. The realm of Satan is a realm of civil war and rebellion, but it's not an equal realm against the realm of light. So we don't believe that you have goodness and evil as metaphysically equally ultimate in this universe. Therefore, and I have given those three points, therefore we are to live in the world. We are not to be dissatisfied with that. We are to live in the world. John 17, verse 18. We are to believe the ascetics through history that are otherworldly deniers of mundane life and the comforts of life and responsibilities of daily life, we would find it very strange that Jesus prays in John 17, verse 18, as you did send me into the world, even so I sent them into the world. Jesus in this prayer says, I do not pray that you would take them out of the world. Verse 15, I pray not that you should take them from the world. but that you should keep them from the evil one. I do not pray that you'll take them from the world, but rather just as you sent me into the world to live an incarnate life, I send them into the world. We should live in the flesh in this world, but unto God." So we are to live in the world. 1 Corinthians 5, verses 9 and 10, Paul humorously mentions that as well. Verse 9, Paul says, I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators. They had not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world or with the covetous and extortioners or with idolaters, for then must your needs go out of the world. As it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company of any man that is named a brother be a fornicator. Paul says, I wrote to you and told you not to have fellowship, not to have company with fornicators. Apparently some people in the church thought that meant any fornicator, not just a fornicator who was a brother. So Paul says, no, that's ridiculous. If you're not to have company of fornicators and other sinners, you'd have to leave this world. And what's the thought behind that? God doesn't want you to leave this world. Somebody said, well, yeah, that's exactly right, Paul, and don't we want to leave this world? And Paul says, no, our task is to be in this world. So we are world-affirming people. On the other hand, we are world-denying people as well. I'd like to explain that by means of two premises and a conclusion. First of all, we are world-denying people in that the word world can be used of rebellion against God as the ground that's in the power of the evil one. Romans 5.12. Therefore as through one man's sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so that death passed unto all men for all of sin, the world now is a realm of sin." And 1 John 5.19 says, "...we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the evil one. Therefore the world is a realm of sin in the power of the evil one." Therefore, we do believe, this is my second point, we do believe that there is an ethical dualism that characterizes this world, an ethical dualism. John 8, verses 42 to 44 is a good illustration of this. John 8, 42 and following, Jesus says, "'If God were your Father, you would love me. For I came forth and am come from God, for neither have I come of myself, but he sent Why do you not understand my speech, even because you cannot hear my word? You are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning and stands not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father thereof." Jesus says there are people whose father is the devil, Satan. That makes us remember the Proto-Evangelium of Genesis 3.15 where God set enmity between the seed of the woman, the godly line, and the seed of Satan. There are those, you see, who belong to the realm of the world, Satan's realm. The world lies in the evil one. Then there are those who belong to God and do hear the word of God and do follow Jesus Christ. There is an ethical dualism then in the midst of our environment. We don't believe in metaphysical dualism, but we certainly believe in an ethical dualism And therefore, the application of these two premises, John 17 says, we are not to belong to the world. We are to be in the world, but not of the world. John 17, 14, I have given them thy word, and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. The world doesn't give us direction. The world is not our home. It is not the realm of our ultimate allegiance and commitment. The world is not the pattern for our behavior. The world is not the source of our power. We are not of the world. We are in the world, but not of the world. So in that sense, Christians are world-affirming and world-denying. This lecture has been on asceticism. I'd like to make some real quick historical remarks. The tendency to abstinence and the tendency to other-worldliness as a form of asceticism does not arise, as we have seen through this study, from Christianity, from Biblical religion, but rather arises from dualistic religious outlooks. For instance, Zoroastrianism teaches there is an equal ultimacy between the power of light and the power of darkness. Zoroastrianism teaches that good and evil are, if you will, on par with each other in power and eternity. And all of history is nothing more than the interaction of these two equally ultimate forces. Platonism, as a philosophical outlook, also embodies this dualistic tendency to teach that there's an unchanging realm of spirit and a changing realm of matter, and that the realm of matter is an evil, dark, dingy, deprecated realm, whereas the realm of spirit is what is good and virtuous and light. So Zoroastrianism and Platonism and dualistic faiths of this nature give rise very naturally to an attitude of abstinence and otherworldliness. Through their influence, Western history and the modern world has now come to use the word ascetic as a form of religious self-denial that deprecates the material world, that deprecates animal appetite and all creaturely comforts or pleasures. Now, a Hellenistic influence, or the various Hellenistic influences on the post-Apostolic very sadly produced in the history of the Church an outward and legalistic form of asceticism. An asceticism that says deny the outward body, deny the comforts of life, and legalistically you will be more holy and have a better chance of being saved. Gnosticism, Montanism, and Manicheanism influence the Church and taught a distorted contempt for the physical world and a severe form of moralism that led rise to, as we've already said, abstinence from physical things and also the attitude that there's no forgiveness for certain kinds of sin. It would be an easy thing for us to sit here and say, Boy, they really were messed up in their mentality back then, weren't they? But the same sort of thing continues to dominate to hold like in a vice grip the modern church. The modern church easily maintains that we should abstain from certain outward things in life. You think of the quote-unquote temperance movement, the attitude among fundamentalists that you shouldn't drink, or you shouldn't go to a show, you shouldn't dance. Maybe somebody has to have sexual relations for the sake of bearing children, but it's a necessary evil. And then also the attitude, the severe moralism that there are certain kinds of sins that are just unforgivable. You take a person who gets involved in a fist fight, the church can forgive him. You get a person who tells a lie, the church can forgive him. In fact, you can take a person who even overeats, the church can forgive him. And the church easily forgives and overlooks racial hatred. But you get a person who commits adultery. or as a converted homosexual. And you're going to find that for all of the liberated modern talk that you find in the church, that there is a pervasive social prejudice against that form of sin. And so this ascetic attitude may not be formalized and legalized, if you will, into a monastic order in the modern evangelical church, but the ascetic mentality influenced by Zoroastrianism and dualism and all the rest is certainly still with us. Medieval asceticism distinguished two forms of piety. There are those who are pious at, if you will, the ordinary level of piety, and then there are those who are extraordinarily pious. There's a difference, you see, between certain decrees, evangelical decrees, and evangelical counsel. Certain people, the elite, the really holy people in the Church, are going to keep the higher laws. laws that are found in the Sermon on the Mount, whereas ordinary holiness is found in the lives of those people in their day-to-day existence that are fairly honest and kind and all the rest. So medieval asceticism distinguishes two forms of piety, emphasizing above all the monastic life as the holiest of all, the life of insulation from the world around and a life of quietistic meditation and religious devotion. And the traditional proof text for this attitude that a monastic life is, above all, the life of holiness, is Matthew 12, 21, where Jesus says to the one called the rich young ruler, Jesus said unto him, If you would be perfect, go sell what you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven. Come, follow me. So if you want to be perfect, if you want to have the highest form of holiness, if you I mean, you're pretty good as far as you go, you've kept all these commandments, but if you want to be perfect, give away everything you have to the poor, deny the things of this world and follow me. And that has been abused by people of monastic and ascetic tendencies to believe that there's a higher form of piety that says, well, I just won't get involved in things of this world, I'll insulate myself from the mundane affairs and frustrations of life and lead a life of prayer and meditation. Now again, we think of that in the medieval sense, so the people who went off into the desert and formed monastic orders and all that, but the monastic spirit is still in the church too, the evangelical church. If people have problems with their children, children may be involved in drugs, may have problems with their family, may have economic problems, God's guidance with respect to righteousness in these affairs is ignored, Because I say these things don't matter, they're of lower priority or of no priority at all, that I am heavenly minded and above them. I don't know anybody who comes out and says those words, but I know plenty of people who live those thoughts. The monastic attitude that, well, if it pertains to this world, I won't worry about it, what's important is that I be withdrawn, quietistic, a person of prayer and meditation, which of course is not to criticize prayer and meditation, absolutely crucial. to the successful living of the Christian life, that prayer and meditation are not ends in themselves, but we live unto God. I've asked what is the goal of life, and I've spent some time here discussing asceticism, the sense in which we are to be ascetic, the sense in which we are not to be ascetic, and I would refer you at this point, and maybe I should just summarize very quickly the syllabus that John Framus put out on Christian ethics where he deals with the false goal in Christian ethics that he calls the two-fold end or what I call the double standard of Christian morality. The two-fold end or the double standard of Christian morality, Frank points out that even as I've said as part of my historical synopsis, that some church fathers under adverse influence and due to misreadings of the Bible, many of which we've already discussed, denigrated the physical world and favored ascetic withdrawal from the world as the highest form of Christian morality, the highest form of holiness. And then Mr. Frame points to Augustine, who had a more positive, world-affirming view of the state and marriage and property, and Augustine taught that these were not evil in themselves. However, he did think that earthly life was a pilgrimage to the hereafter and the supreme goal of life was the vitific vision of God in heaven, so that although earthly pursuits were not sinful in themselves, earthly pursuits could in themselves be distracting us from our heavenly goal. Therefore, asceticism can be valuable, not because the flesh is evil, he believed in the goodness of creation, and not because we should be seeking things which are unpleasant for the sake of having unpleasant lives, but rather because the practices of the flesh in this world might distract us from God and an ascetic life would free us from such preoccupations that we could better serve the Lord. Frame's evaluation here is that this is a better realization of the goodness of creation and that Augustine's concern is an ethical concern rather than a metaphysical concern, a concern with the use of things rather than things in themselves, but he certainly does go beyond the Bible and what he teaches. He has some very good questions. He says, Is it true, after all, that all desire is evil? Is all desire for things evil? And is marriage always more spiritual and containing less dangers than celibacy? The history of the celibate life wouldn't bear that up. Is the state always less godly than the church? There might be some situations where you'd wonder about that. In these overgeneralizations, Augustine almost returns to a hierarchical pattern. that the spiritual is better than the material, doesn't it? So his otherworldliness and his preference for monasticism would run contrary to the biblical emphasis upon involvement in the affairs of this world, affirmation of the creation and the enjoyment of it. Even worse than Augustine, although Augustine is better than his predecessors, but perhaps not as good as even Augustine, is Thomas Aquinas. who saw man's highest good as the contemplation of God and love for God, and in its highest form being the beatific vision that we can only have in the life to come. Now, in this life, the contemplative existence, the contemplative lifestyle is superior to a practical life, because a contemplative life is based on the love for God, but the practical life, the life of involvement in the world, must be based upon love for man. And for that reason, Aquinas said that the practical life doesn't have so much merit as the contemplative life. A contemplative life will free us from our senses, from our bodily organs, and from the affairs of the material world. So like Augustine, Aquinas presents us with an essentially otherworldly ethic that is based on an exclusive and perverted reading of biblical warnings about the temptations of earthly life and upon Platonic understanding of the Kingdom of God as our highest good. However, it could be said that Aquinas actually compounds the problems that we have mentioned briefly here in Augustine, because with a lower view of the effects of sin, Aquinas sees man without grace as capable of goodness at a certain level, but needing grace to achieve the highest goal. Aquinas doesn't have the same view of sin as Augustine, and so he really deprecates the grace of God much more by saying that while there's a certain form of holiness that all men are capable of performing themselves, that God's grace is needed if you're going to get to the highest form of holiness. And Aquinas actually divided Christians into various groups who have different obligations. That is, there's a group that has the higher morality to follow, and the other group that has the more mundane morality to follow. even though he doesn't hold that the group following the lower morality is guilty of sin. This idea is totally without biblical warrant. There's not a stitch of evidence that God has different standards and legal codes for different people and that those who follow a lower code are not sinning, really, but they just don't have the superfluous holiness of the other group. So the lessons that we should learn are that, first of all, we must maintain that all men have the same chief end in this world, and a great deal of mischief is done if we don't. We need to see that human life is one, and that the goal of human life is one. And secondly, when we formulate the goal that we are to follow, we need to formulate it from Scripture and not formulate it on the basis of isolated proof text misread passages that don't take into account the genre or the metaphors that may be involved, and especially not based on generalizations from Greek philosophy and dualistic religions that contrast physical and spiritual, civil and ecclesiastical, married and celibate, and all the rest. All of life is one, and all of mankind is one. So the goal for man is going to include the physical and spiritual domains, and that goal is going to be the same for all individuals. So we have asceticism on the one hand, rightly and wrongly to be affirmed, and the unity of the goal that needs to be affirmed, the unification of all of creation, spiritual as well as physical, and the unification of all mankind under the particular goal that we're going to mention. Well, what is finally then the goal of Christian living and ethics? Westminster Shorter Catechism begins right with that question that I said is, you know, a psychological frustration, a matter of curiosity or frustration, a question that all people have to face for themselves in their heart of hearts, and certainly one that we have to give some answer to in a class on teleological ethics. What is the chief end of man? And by end here, the catechism means telos, the chief purpose, the goal of man. What is the chief end of man? What's he here for? The answer that you all know is that man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. To glorify God and to enjoy him forever. From the very beginning of the Bible, it's clear at the creation account that the purpose of man was to live unto God. Man was created and preserved, and the Bible will point out later he's redeemed for the sake of God's purposes. We must add here, and no other. It isn't as though there are competing ends in this world, and that God just kind of fits in there on the shelf along with all the rest. That is what I would call a Time Magazine image of life. If you read Time Magazine, it's divided up into all these categories of life. You have athletics, or sports I guess they call it. You have art, and you have business, and you have politics, and religion. And then you can add all the rest, you see. And you might think of man as having this diversified life where there's my physical existence and there's my marital existence and there's my industrial existence and there's my athletic existence. And then of course I have a religious streak in there too. The Bible indicates that man was created and is controlled, providentially ruled over for God's purposes alone. There are no other competitors with God. We will have no other gods, no other lords in his presence before him. So man is created for the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10.31 makes it very clear, therefore, that everything in life, everything must be done to the glory of God. This is a really amazing verse when you think about it. Paul says, "...whether therefore you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Even though you put on your shoes in the morning, do it to the glory of God. It's a difficult passage to deal with, it seems to me, if you're one of those people who thinks that what's really important in this world is evangelism and prayer and preaching and counseling. The ordinary affairs of this world are not really all that important. They're necessary evils, we get by with them. But here the Bible says that whatever you do must bring glory to God, not just your evangelistic efforts, but as well the way you put on your shoes and the way you eat your food. That should be a God-glorifying activity. Colossians 3.17, and following, And whatsoever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Verse 23, "...whatsoever you do, work heartily as unto the Lord, and not unto men." So that whatever you're doing in this world, whether you're watching TV or playing baseball with your children, whether you're working, your vocation, your calling in life, whether you're evangelizing others or having Christian fellowship, or just putting on your clothes in the morning, or eating your food, whatever you do, do it unto the Lord. This is an activity that I've given over to Jesus Christ. It's consecrated to his service. And I'll do it heartily as unto him. So that everything we do is for the glory of God and unto Jesus Christ. What does that mean? Often enough it's a lot easier to say everything must be done to the glory of God than to say what it means to do something for the glory of God. To do something for the glory of God means to do something in such a way that God would be praised because of it. to do things in such a way that God would receive the praise because of it. All of eternity, of course, will be spent in one way or another bringing praise to God and doing those things which are praiseworthy, that is, those things which will show God to be worthy of praise and that will lead people to praise, to actually cry out, sing out in jubilation about God and his character and his blessings. So our obligation is to pervade every aspect of life and to make every choice in life in such a way that it will lead us to praise and lead others to praise God. We should live to the glory of God and do all things unto Jesus Christ. The Catechism says we not only live for the glory of God, that our chief end is to glorify God, but it's also to enjoy God forever. To enjoy God forever. If you read in the Psalms, for instance, Psalm 1 or Psalm 119, you notice that when God lays down our duties in his law, that that law brings delight to the heart. You say, OK, I'm going to live unto God, so I'm going to do what he tells me. But the Bible says, if I do what he tells me, I'm going to find in that law delight. It's going to please me, it's going to satisfy me to live that way. Indeed, Leviticus 18.5 says that the law of God is a way of life for us. Obedience is a conduit for covenant blessing, that we find our life in the context of God's commandments so that we live in that atmosphere. Deuteronomy 10, verse 12 tells us that when God gave us the law, he gave it to us for our good. So if we're really going to be doing things which are God-pleasing and we're going to bring glory to God in this world, we can also consider whether it brings enjoyment to man. You see there's a Christian utilitarianism here. If some contemplated line of activity shows promise for bringing a great deal of unnecessary misery to people whereas a contrary line of activity could bring a great deal of happiness to people and pleasure one must wonder as a Christian whether he would have the right to pursue the misery-producing activity rather than the pleasure-producing activity. We are under obligation to do things for our good and the good of others. And if we really know what the good for ourselves and for others is, we'll be doing what the law of God says because the law of God was ordained for our good. So if we can calculate means to end relationships and consequences, those things which are the best consequences for bringing pleasure and happiness to people will be the thing that we should do, where, now mind you, the consequences of pleasure and satisfaction are centered on God. Because the enjoyment of man is not a selfish enjoyment, it's always we are to glorify God and enjoy him forever, rather than we are to glorify God and be in an enjoying frame of mind forever. It isn't just abstract enjoyment, but it's enjoyment directed to the things of God. Scripture certainly does condemn selfishness and a preoccupation with our own comforts and our own pleasures, because there's often the demand for self-sacrifice in this world, enduring hardships, enduring persecution, but knowing that if we do so, we will achieve the most enduring forms of happiness, the best forms of happiness. So there is a great deal of rigor in the Christian life, and the Bible exhorts us to endure that and be willing to endure it. The consequences we look for aren't always comfortable and pleasurable, but the consequences will always, in the end, be for our pleasure and happiness. Now, I've said on the one hand we're supposed to live for the glory of God, on the other hand we're supposed to live for the enjoyment of man, of course, as that has a focus on the glory of God. God is always the center of our lives. Dr. Van Til has done a very good thing in suggesting that the sumum bonum, the highest good, the end of man, the consequence we should be looking for, the result of our life, the telos or aim or purpose of our existence might best be considered more broadly the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God. At the beginning of this course I pointed out that qualifications for entering the kingdom of God are indeed ethical and that living in the kingdom calls for a certain lifestyle that's pleasing to God. So the kingdom of God is certainly, if you will, a moral concept in the Bible. But notice that the kingdom of God incorporates the theocentric emphasis on the glory of God, as well as the anthropocentric emphasis upon the enjoyment of man. God's kingdom is a kingdom of grace that benefits its subjects. God rules well over his people. Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, our Deliverer. He is the one who blesses us. and providentially takes care of our lives. Moreover, if we think of the kingdom of God as the goal of life, we can incorporate the dynamic of history moving along and the kingdom growing and having more and more effect in this world. So we get the historical dimension. So we get the God-centered concept of the glory of God as the end of life. the man-centered, if you will, consequence of the enjoyment of life, as well as the historical perspective of growth and the overcoming of opposition to the rule of God, if we think of the end of our lives and our behavior as being God's kingdom. The fulfillment of our lives is found in the kingdom of God. Jesus said, Seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness and all these things shall be added to you. Seek first God's kingdom and then all the day-to-day things of life, food and clothing, will be yours. And so we'll use that then as the broadest, most comprehensive and adequate way of summarizing what we should be shooting for, what the target of our lives and decisions is to be. God's kingdom, incorporating the glory of God, the enjoyment of man, provision for his needs and pleasure, and also the historical dimension of the rule of God overcoming all opposition. When we come back after a short break, we'll have a short time for questions. This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute. Duplication, sharing and distribution is encouraged. For more information about the life and ministry of Dr. Greg L. Bonson, visit our website, www.bonsoninstitute.com, where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.