Greg Koukl on Provisionism

My thoughts on Greg Koukl’s talk on Provisionism. He begins by uncritically accepting the assertion by the man who asked him about Provisionism, that Provisionism calls into question the salvation of Calvinists. This is just wrong, with the same individual exceptions that can be found in any body of believers. Indeed, I would be more worried by statements by people such as R. C. Sproul that Christians who do not accept his view of meticulous divine determination are in fact atheists. (see Sproul, “No maverick molecule“). Or again from Sproul, that Arminians are “barely” Christians.

Secondly, Greg talks about “Provisionism” being a new thing, and warns his listeners that “new is bad”. I roll my eyes at this one, and wonder if the pre-reformation church trotted out this against the reformers. Of course the real test for all the reformed is not “is it new”, but is it “biblical”.

He also says that Provisionism differs from Arminianism in that Provisionism affirms eternal security. This is not a distinctive of Provisionism, it is held by some as inferring “once saved always saved”, and not by others. The statement on this topic from Provisionism is that eternal security “is divine provision that is everlasting for all true believers”, which leaves a lot on the table as to the characteristics of “true believers”.

Later in his talk Greg begins to get to the real distinctive of Provisionism, which is how it deals with the doctrine of total depravity. This discussion is the most useful of his talk. Regardless how Greg deals with it, which you can hear from Greg, let me try to describe the actual different views as I see it.

Calvinism states that total depravity means that all are born unable to have faith. God grants to some the necessity of having faith, these are necessarily saved. The rest he leaves to necessarily die in their sins.

Arminianism states that total depravity means that all are born unable to have faith. God grants to all the ability to have faith. Those who exercise that ability positively are saved, those who do not die in their sins.

Provisionism states that total depravity means that all have sinned, but all are born with the ability to have faith. Those who exercise that ability positively are saved, those who do not die in their sins. Provisionism differs from Arminianism, in that it does not accept the definition of total depravity that Calvinism and Arminianism share.

Greg invokes the boogey man of Pelagianism against Provisionism by stating that the Provisionist view seems to be like Pelagius’ “heretical view” of man’s abilities. But this is not clearly defined in his talk, it only serves to further add to the list of “guilt by association” which characterizes the earlier parts of his talk.

Greg does at the end go through the PROVIDE acronym which is great in terms of letting Provisionism define itself. If he had started here that would have been better. He takes issue with the D which states that people are Destroyed for “unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit’s drawing to divine mercy”. He points out what Provisionism actually agrees with that it is our sin that attracts punishment. This is actually implied in the acronym where it adds “will be the divine provision of justice“.

The disappointment here is that Greg uses his platform to talk too much about things which are not defining characteristics of Provisionism as taught by Leighton Flowers. To redeem himself he should have a public conversation with Leighton so that his audience can be better informed.

Sir Apirani Ngata, Waitangi 1940

6th February 1940, Waitangi Centennial Celebrations.

(transcript starting at 5 minutes 42 seconds into his speech)

“… What remains of the treaty of Waitangi? What is there in the treaty that the Maori can today celebrate wholeheartedly with you? Let me say one thing: clause one of the treaty handed over the mana and the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever. That is the outstanding fact today. That, but for the shield of the sovereignty handed over to her majesty and her descendants I doubt whether there would be a free Maori race in New Zealand today. Our acknowledgement of that outstanding fact in the history of the one hundred years is: we offer up the youth the very flower of our race to stand side by side with you in the empire’s fight. If, your excellency, that means obtaining to the full manhood of the Maori race, well then we can accept the war as our opportunity of making good with you as joint citizens in the British empire. Having said that, there’s a lot in a hundred years, but so little time, nor is there the mood today to say anything that would disturb the harmony between the two races. Let me acknowledge further that in the whole of the world, I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Maori in New Zealand. But there still remains a thing called the spirit of the Maori people. We want to remain part, but a distinct and individual part of the future inhabitants of this country. The message of the Maori race to you is: we want to retain our individuality as a race. If judged by your standards we fall short, try and look it from the Maori standpoint, so long as we are happy does it matter very much whether we square up with the Pakeha standards or not? Are they so very good? That we should square up to them? Let us achieve health, comfort, happiness. We are well on the way to that now, thanks to the qualities of the government in New Zealand. But, while you help us, please remember that a lot of the things that you do for us would appear to be for our betterment but they contain with them dynamic forces that somehow or other shatter the Maori culture that we wish to retain, as the foundation of our individuality as a people. There is a Rudyard Kipling who said: “Masters of the Seven Seas, love and understand!“. In the hundred years that lie before, what we appeal to the Pakeha is: to understand. I think he loves. Let him understand. Before we proceed Mr Fraser, further with a new century, I think a clear duty before the Government of New Zealand and our European fellow citizens, to try and wipe out the past hundred. There still some things that remain over, and I have been asked by the assembly here to say to the Government: when the Taranaki confiscated lands problem was settled Taranaki people ceased to look backward, they looked forward. When the Arawa lakes claim was settled, that tribe ceased to look backwards, they looked forwards. Will the Government assist Waikato to close their eyes to the past and look forward with the rest of the tribes of New Zealand? Our South Island friends, the same. The natives in the Bay of Plenty. There are grievances in the North Island, in the north part of Auckland. You saw the red blankets displayed there in front of the stage, in the pageantry. Representing the fact that lands in the North Island were sold to the Pakeha in the old days. The Pakeha who thought it best, instead of handing back the land, the surplus land purchased from the Maori, the Government took those lands. Without any right whatsoever. This is the surplus land problem of the north. We are to see claims, shall be settled in order that the native race may no longer look back to the past, but look confidently to the future and have nothing, no weight on their shoulders to prevent them from walking confidently to the future side by side with you.

I think we’d like new treaties. It’s in the air just now treaties, we read of nothing else, we hear of nothing else over the air but treaties. Trade treaties, treaties torn up, treaties trodden into the mud. This gentleman’s agreement we call the treaty of Waitangi, on the whole hasn’t been badly observed. There are times when we all must have a good look at the other gentleman to see how on the whole he’s behaved. And I suppose, you Pakehas have a look at us and wonder what sort of men we are in fulfilling our obligations under the treaty. The one thing we don’t like, and I don’t think anybody likes it either, Mr Nash knows that. We don’t like paying taxes. And the fact that just towards the end of this New Zealand centennial, a hundred year period, taxes began to arrive, caused us a lot of concern. We said this is the treaty of Waitangi. This is the great gift of her Majesty who said in 1840: “I give to you now the finest gift in my power as the Queen of the Pakehas, I’m going to make you equal to the Pakehas“. We didn’t know just what the monkey was in that a hundred years ago. The monkey in it was rates and taxes. Oh as we start the new century we are trying to make ourselves at home with rates and taxes, social security and all these other things. If anything brings home to the Maori what complete citizenship of the British Empire means it is that side by side with the privileges of that citizenship go its obligations. Very well we start the new century with our eyes wide open as to what the obligations are.

That is the message of the Maori people for you today. We hope that the Pakehas will help us to be, and to remain Maori as far as possible in our culture while reaching forward to the strength in the material things that belong to the Pakeha, in order that we may attain to full citizenship. Not the same! Not identical citizenship, but equal, and as far as rises the Maori to carry out his obligations as the citizen.

Welcome your excellency to Waitangi and farewell. It seems to be now the habit of representatives of the King to make one visit to the Maoris at Waitangi and then go away. Lord Bledisloe made one visit in 1934 and it was to say to us “Kiaora koto haekone” “Good health to you, remain in your country”. So your excellency, welcome to Waitangi and farewell. We wish you and Lady Galway in the country to which you really belong across the sea, long life and happiness. We acknowledge the many kindnesses you have rendered to our people. The tone of sympathy you always struck and I think the great understanding that you have shown of the different point of view of the Maori portion of the dominion that you have had the
privilege, and a pleasurable one I’m sure, of governing in the last few years.”

To listen to a recording of Apirana Ngata’s speech follow here:

https://www.ngataonga.org.nz/explore-stories/stories/new-zealand-history/sir-apirana-ngatas-speech-at-the-centennial-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-1940/

From the Maori colony

A letter to Lord Jellicoe, Governor General of New Zealand, from “The Life of John Rushworth Earl Jellicoe” by Admiral Sir R. H. Bacon, 1936. page 481.

Wellington, 17th November 1924

YOUR EXCELLENCY,

Great is our sorrow that to-morrow you will turn your face from us and from this land. Depart, oh Governor! since it has been decreed that you must leave our land and return to your own far land, from which you came to wear awhile the mantle of our Lord, the King. Depart in honour, having bourne that sign of Majesty as befitted a great Chief and a warrior of fame.

Farewell.

Go then in peace, you who were bred to the mightiest of adventures of the great ocean of Kiwa, bearing with you the enduring regard and loving respect of this young Nation. With our pakeha brethren we have shared in the honour and good fortune that placed you over our land during the troublous years since the Great War.

Farewell.

Return then with your wife and your children to your own land, to your own people, there to enjoy yet many years of well-being and happiness. Bear to His Majesty the King our message of loyalty, our hope and trust in the Empire, to which we are proud to belong may always remain great and wise.

For the Maori race of New Zealand, we its representatives in Parliament bid you and yours a regretful farewell.

Haere ra! E hoki-ki-tou whenua kura.

We have the honour to be Your Excellency’s Most obedient Servants,

J. G. Coates. M.P., A European

M. Pomare. Sir Maui Pomare, A Maori who was Native Minister in Mr Massey’s administration.

Jas. Carroll. Ariki, Sir James Carroll, A Maori

A. T. Ngata. Sir Apirana Ngata, M.P. Native Minister for several years until 1934. A Maori.

Tau Henare. One of the four Maori M.P.s representing the Native Race in the House of Representatives.

Wiremu Rikihana. A prominent Maori.

Thoughts on the God of War

I have just finished watching a play through of God of War Ragnarök. For me, I am not a big consumer of modern entertainment. There is too much which is ungodly, in both the philosophy and the presentation of what comes out of major studios like Disney, and in this case Sony. However, to be in the world but not of it, one cannot be in complete rejection to the thoughts of the world. Also, not all messages from outside the Church are ungodly. We are all made in the image of God, however ruined we are. So, thanks to the presentation of you tuber Christopher Odd, I gave it a chance. No spoilers in this review.

To briefly summarize the story. You play as Kratos (did you know it’s a Greek word meaning “power”?) and his son Atreus, demi-god characters immersed in the Norse pantheon as they struggle to avert the impending cataclysm of Ragnarök.

Firstly, as a Christian I had one major pain point with the game. The language. Profanity is scattered throughout, although not uttered by the main characters. The game gets an R13 rating here in NZ, 17+ in the US and 18 in the UK. Way to go protecting children from mature content New Zealand… The game also deserves to be rated for maturity for violence, but this is a given in a warrior game where axes and blades are involved. I had no issue with the violence level in this game, and I’m one who has difficulty re-watching “Saving Private Ryan” and “Band of Brothers”. There is NO issue with this game from a sexual immorality perspective.

From a gaming perspective, the visuals are awesome. The level based progression of the characters works well, and the story unfolds smoothly with cut scenes flawlessly interspersed with game play. As well as defeating various enemies in hand-to-hand combat, your characters need to solve various puzzles to progress or obtain rewards.

An overarching theme in the story is “prophecy”. The main characters seem to be working to a predetermined script, with their fate set, and their nature unchangeable. This issue is a question that concerns us all, are we just slaves to our nature, or can we choose to be different?

The theme of parents and children is also front and centre in the game, particularly fathers and children, and the issue of how far should parents go to protect their children.

Many of the characters in the game have been hurt in various ways by their own actions and the actions of others. One character is particularly tormented by his past actions. How does he find absolution for the horrors he has committed?

One key lesson the game teaches is that regardless of our past we can “be better”. This is something we should all aspire to, and is a great message. But it does not answer the problem of our past crimes, for which justice demands payment.

In Christian theology, some say that our paths are set by God. This is a religious equivalent to the atheist who claims our actions are just the sum of our component parts, matter in motion is all we are. The Christian form of this view “theistic determinism” simply replaces matter with the dictates of God. Both of these deterministic philosophies are false, and the game portrays this well. Although history IS marching toward a certain goal preset by God, we can choose. We are not helpless actors in a cosmic play.

And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, Thus have you said: ‘Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we rot away because of them. How then can we live?’ Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? “And you, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness, and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins.

While choosing to “be better” answers to a better future for us, where is justice for the evil things we have done? Also, who can live on the knife edge shown in the call of God above where “The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses…the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins”. The soul who sins will die.

The game does not understand the gift of God to man, though it understands our freedom, our value, and our sins. Jesus the son of God says to all men: “I will be your King”. And in that office, He takes you, if you will own Him, into His body. He was pleased to suffer the capital requirement of God’s justice for your sins on His cross. And because our King is the righteous one, death could not hold Him. He lives and His people live with Him.

An inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

The Oath of God

On Salvation

God is gracious by his own will. It is his will, from the foundation of the world, to be gracious to those who have faith in Him.

Exodus 33:12-19

V 3, I will not go up with you because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.

V14, I will go before you and I will give you rest

V17, I will do what you have asked, for you have found grace in my sight

Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. – Hebrews 11:6

Circumstances such as being  “born into a Christian family” are God’s choice. The potter’s prerogative. The first choice of God over you is: to form you male or female. God has made you thus, perform your role.

In doing what God has formed you to do, who will be saved by doing a good job in the places God has assigned them? No one. Salvation is needed by those who have failed, not those who succeeded in doing what they should. It is the sick who need the Doctor.

Salvation is by grace, through faith, and this <grace> is not of yourselves it is the gift of God. Not a result of works, so that no one may boast. – Ephesians 2:8-9

Faith is NOT a work. It is the opposite of a work.

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. – Romans 3:27-28

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. – Romans 4:4-5

Biblical election (God’s choice to use his children for his various purposes) can be unconditional. God’s choice of the nation of Israel is an example of an unconditional choice of God. Biblical election can be conditional: on works for wages, on faith for grace. The one who lives will do the things of the Law. This one is Christ. He lives, as is demonstrated by his resurrection. By grace, God includes us in Christ, us who have faith, like that of Abraham.

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. – Romans 4:6

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit. – Ephesians 1:11-13

Your faith is yours. Your salvation is accomplished wholly by Christ and accepted or rejected by you. This is your God-given responsibility.

It is an error to attribute the responsibility for your faith to God.

Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted:

“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience. – Hebrews 4:6-11

Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls. – 1 Peter 1:8-9

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. – John 3:15-18

Submission on Abortion Law Reform Part Two

I am opposed to removing abortion from the crimes act. When a woman is pregnant it is said of her, that she is “with child”. The current legislation recognises this, if imperfectly. Treating abortion as purely a “woman’s health” issue and not a “woman and child” issue is a denial of the person-hood of the child. This is a dangerous precedent, to tie the understanding of the “child” to the external determination of the mother. If it is ethical to allow the mother to declare the human being in her womb to be a non-person and to kill him/her, then why is it unethical to kill the human being in her arms?

I recommend that current legislation be strengthened to fully recognise and protect the person-hood and life of the baby in the womb. Further, guardianship of the baby in the womb should be invested in both biological parents of the child.

Submission on abortion law reform

Criminal aspects of abortion law

I support the person-hood of the baby in the mother’s womb from conception. This would extend to the right to life for our young ones from conception. This would mean that anyone involved in the killing of the baby in the womb would be subject to existing criminal penalties for manslaughter or murder.

Grounds for abortion

Someone who caused an abortion to occur would be subject to the criminal code. The only possible grounds for abortion would be tested under the rules for manslaughter.

Process for getting an abortion

All government support and funding for abortion would cease. This would be replaced by increased support and funding for adoption, where the unborn child’s parents were unable or unwilling to care for them. The government would introduce programs of education for teenagers reinforcing the ultimate value of every human life.

Other aspects of abortion law

Currently the rights of the father in abortion are not recognized. Both the mother and father should be equally responsible for the life of the unborn child.

 

A Bridge Too Far

“Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”
2 Tim 2:19

Leaving a church is a sad thing, and should never be done lightly. However, if Motion 29 is passed at the forthcoming Anglican General Synod in early May, this will likely be our path.

What is “motion 29” and why would we break fellowship over it? Motion 29 will be discussed at Anglican General Synod 2018, May 4-11 2018. Motion 29 has two components:

1. allowing bishops to authorise individual clergy to conduct services blessing same gender relationships … where the minister has satisfied him or herself that the relationship is loving, monogamous, faithful and the couple are committed to a life-long relationship.
2. providing immunity from complaint for bishops and clergy for exercising their discretion on whether or not to authorise or conduct services of same gender blessings.

The idea is to provide a structure within the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, that allows same gender blessings, at the discretion of the local Bishop, and exempts these services from disciplinary action. The benefit of this is that it removes the “danger” from the topic. Bishops in favour of same gender blessings need not worry about being disciplined for holding services, and Bishops against likewise.

The problem here in my mind is: does this neat sidestep avoid an issue that actually needs to be addressed? The innovation here is the church “blessing same gender relationships”. Is the blessing of the church rightly to be applied here?

To determine the mind of God on a subject the first port of call for the church has always been the Bible. Fortunately for the enquirer, the direct scriptures regarding homosexuality are few, and surveying these we find that homosexuality is:

• an Old Testament abomination, receiving the death penalty under Israelite law.
• listed in the New Testament in the midst of a catalog of sins.
• cited in the New Testament as a vile punishment from God on those who abandon Him for idolatry

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Lev 18:22

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:13

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 6:9-10

The law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.
1 Tim 1:9-10

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Romans 1:22-27

Should the church bless that which is described in such terms? Homosexuality is not special, it is just one of many expressions of “sexual immorality” which deviate from God’s design of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24

The teaching of the leadership at our Anglican church of St John’s is that “motion 29” is a gospel issue. The salvation of people is in danger if the Church affirms them in any practice of immorality.

So “motion 29” seems a bridge too far for me. I believe it is not being true to God, or a true witness to the world, to avoid making a decision over this issue by “providing immunity from complaint for bishops and clergy for exercising their discretion on whether or not to authorise or conduct services of same gender blessings.”

I believe that homosexuality truly does fall into the realm of “sexual immorality”, and that the church has been provided teaching in the Bible on how to deal with it. What the Anglican church should be doing is working out the process of church discipline, not exempting this particular example of immorality from discipline.

1 Corinthians 5 provides a perfect example of how immorality within the church should be handled:

For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”
1 Cor 5:12-13

This episode involved a church that did not exercise internal discipline, but instead was proud of it’s inclusiveness of an unrepentant brother. Note that it is not just sexual immorality that is in view here.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife!  And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed.  In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
1 Cor 5:1-11

As a church we at St Johns continue to pray that the wider Anglican church in New Zealand would choose to NOT affirm “motion 29”. I think this would be a blessing and a shining light to our stumbling nation.

Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while— yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.  Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
2 Cor 7:8-10

Submission on End of Life Choice Bill

I am opposed to the “End of life” bill for the following reasons:

1. The Hippocratic oath which guides the medical profession states in part “I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.” This bill is in direct contravention of this guiding principle of medicine.
   1. The World Medical Association states: “Euthanasia, that is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient’s own request or at the request of close relatives, is unethical“. ” The World Medical Association reaffirms its strong belief that euthanasia is in conflict with basic ethical principles of medical practice, and the World Medical Association strongly encourages all National Medical Associations and physicians to refrain from participating in euthanasia, even if national law allows it or decriminalizes it under certain conditions.
   2. The New Zealand Medical Association  is opposed to both the concept and practice of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide. Euthanasia, that is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient’s request or at the request of close relatives, is unethical. Doctor-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical.
2. This bill seeks to allow the practice of “assisted suicide” whereas the law of New Zealand has never before allowed this. The witness of previous generations is against this bill.
3. Suicide is an action that is currently never recommended in New Zealand. Anyone contemplating suicide regardless of their situation is always directed to other actions by society and medical professionals. This ensures that situational factors, including the views of the individual, are always secondary to the value of the life of the individual. This ensures that the focus of treatment for suffering individuals is on their inalienable positive value to society, not on the negative forces they are experiencing. Suicide should never be provided as an option to anyone, particularly to those traumatized in experiencing extreme pain from physical and or mental causes. Rather, as it is today, society should always say “We love and need you. We will help to heal your pain.”
4. Suicide in New Zealand is currently only an option for individuals who must perform this action alone contrary to the law, advice and practice of society. This provides a powerful deterrent to a deleterious practice that should be as rare as we can make it.

Points 1.1 and 1.2 above were not in my submission to the select committee.

The witness of God in the Holy Bible does not condemn suicide explicitly, but the following points can be taken:

1. 1. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man” – Genesis 9:6
   2. There are only two suicides recorded outside of time of war: Judas, the betrayer of Jesus Christ, and Ahithophel the betrayer of King David.
   3. Two leaders of Israel, Saul and Abimelech, both sought “assisted suicide” in war. Saul to avoid capture in defeat, and Abimelech to avoid the dishonor of being killed by a woman. In the case of Saul, the man who killed him was judicially executed:
      So David said to him, “How was it you were not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” Then David called one of the young men and said, “Go near, and execute him!” And he struck him so that he died. So David said to him, “Your blood is on your own head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the Lord’s anointed.’”
      – 2 Samuel 1:14-16