Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 6
The examples of Apollotus refusing baptism to charioteers/gladiators and Wesley forbidding buying smuggled goods raise the issue of time-bound standards; how do you discern the difference between (a) deleting obsolete standards and (b) “modifying standards to fit the ever-changing dictates of the world,” especially on today’s hot-button issues?
Another way to ask: How can you tell the difference between dropping a rule that no longer applies and changing rules just to match the world’s values? How would you use that on today’s controversial issues?

Direct Answer Bercot’s distinction is that “updating” should mean removing standards tied to issues that “no longer exist” and adding standards for “new challenges,” not relaxing obedience to match the world’s shifting values. The transcript gives principles and examples, but it doesn’t provide a detailed decision process for today’s hot-button issues.

Support from Transcript:

  • He notes some standards are tied to their era: Apollotus denied baptism to “charioteers and gladiators,” vital in AD 200 but “non-issues in the 21st century.”
  • Wesley’s rule forbidding “buying or selling smuggled goods” was “a huge issue” in 18th-century England but “rarely an issue for most of us” now.
  • He observes omissions tied to context: Methodist rules addressed “neither abortion nor divorce” because abortion was illegal and divorce “extremely rare.”
  • He warns: “By ‘updated,’ I do not mean… modify its standards to fit the ever-changing dictates of the world.”
  • Instead: delete standards about issues that “no longer exist,” and “add new standards to fit new challenges.”
Discussion Follow-ups A helpful question from Bercot’s framework: is an issue truly obsolete, or is it still a live temptation needing biblical guidance even if culture has shifted?