Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:06] Speaker B: Welcome to the Truth Exchange Podcast. This is a weekly program with Dr. Jeffrey J. Ventrella, where he answers questions from subscribers around the globe, answering questions about worldview, cultural apologetics and other miscellaneous items. I'm your host, Joshua Gilo, and this is another edition of the Director's Bag.
We have a number of questions from folks on social media asking about cloning, specifically cloning of the dire wolf. One writer asked, it seems that once an animal is extinct that to resurrect such a being via cloning would be contrary to God's providence. Dr. Ventrell, what do you think about cloning and specifically this advancement in technology?
[00:00:57] Speaker A: Yeah, it's a very interest question. So I think of a couple things. One, let's recall that I believe it was Jacob who, for probably less than pure motives, mated certain sheep so some would come out spotted or not spotted and that sort of thing. There was nothing problematic about that. Now, his technology, of course, consisted of a corral and putting the sheep together. But he made choices there because he understood the outcome would be a little bit different.
So that's one item, one data point we should consider. I actually wrote an article on that in the 90s concerning Dolly the sheep who was actually cloned. Now, what's happening with respect to this latest bit of publicity concerning the dire wolf doesn't involve cloning. What it does involve is genetic editing of a ray wolf and then using that genetic editing to put some dominant trait genes into the code and then using essentially a dog to gestate another wolf. And so these are not pure dire wolves. Rather, they are genetically edited wolves that have some of the characteristics and traits of the extinct dire wolf. So we're not resurrecting a species at this point.
So that's one fact. Another factor we need to look at is that to have a dire wolf actually means having dire wolf parents rearing dire wolves. And I don't know what you call baby wolves. Is it kits? That's a fox, cubs, what, whatever they are. That is part of what it means to be a dire wolf. It's not simply reducible to genetic material, even if we were created 100%. So I think we need to be careful in our. Both our language and our expectations. Now, none of these issues, though, bridge the gap between creatures and those singular creatures made in the image and likeness of God, humans. When we get into that sort of technology, I think we have to be very careful cloning humans and that sort of thing, which evidently has been done in Korea and perhaps China.
Now, ought we to Utilize genetic technology for the betterment of human flourishing. Well, the answer is yes, if you can get rid of genetic diseases such as sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis or any other things that cause death, suffering, destruction, that sort of thing. But I would say no if the entire issue is to produce a more consumer friendly human like, oh, I want blonde and blue eyes and I want to get rid of pattern baldness and all these kinds. In other words, a vain sort of idea. I think that's where we get into some real difficult problems there if we're essentially commoditizing someone. And of course it stands to reason that just because even if you could clone using all the genetic material, which you can't by the way, because the mitochondrial cannot be reproduced, but if you could clone Michael Jordan, you wouldn't have Michael Jordan.
[00:04:29] Speaker B: Right, right.
[00:04:30] Speaker A: There's all kinds of factors, agency that goes into that. So I guess the other part of the question there, and it's a perceptive question, is what about the providence of God in that. Yeah, we have to be careful that we don't become deterministic or fatalistic in invoking the providence of God. For example, well, I'm being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. I guess my life's over. Well, no, that's not the nature of God's providence. God's providence also includes things like common grace and that sort of thing. So we never leave ethics.
Ethics doesn't conflict with God's providential order.
[00:05:08] Speaker B: Right.
[00:05:08] Speaker A: And so we still must make choices. So I hope that helps us a little bit there.
[00:05:12] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. It reminds me of the, that last part portion about God's providence and being determinist is, and I'm sure you've heard this joke. What did the Calvinists say once he fell down the steps?
Glad that's over with.
[00:05:26] Speaker A: Yeah, well, yeah, there's a lot of them like that, aren't there? It's kind of like how do you know was God feel God's will for you go fishing because I did it.
[00:05:36] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:05:40] Speaker A: Yeah, that's, that's, that's, that's. I would suggest go back to school and study the doctrine of Providence.
[00:05:45] Speaker B: That's right.
[00:05:45] Speaker A: Thoroughly.
[00:05:46] Speaker B: That's right. Benjamin from Alabama writes Dear Truth Exchange podcast. Dr. Ventrella and Joshua Gilo, thank you for your show and weekly articles. The recent article on Calvin University, footnote 11. Yes, I read the footnotes though I think some of your footnotes are worthy to be issues tackled at greater lengths. Do you think that Dr. Smith's salvation is Compromised because he has widened his doors to the lgbtq. I'll read the footnote for our listeners who might not be familiar with that notice. And the footnote says this notice. The sleight of hand here, salvation issue is equated with disagreement is disallowed. Smith is confusing categories. Smith, I suspect, doesn't really contend that Synod is saying one is damned with certitude for being baptistic or even affirming same sex marriage. Rather, he's irritated that he can't kick against the scriptural sexual norm. The point is that affirming same sex marriage departs from a credible Christian profession of faith and thereby puts one into spiritual jeopardy. It is a position rooted in deception that, as Paul says, will not inherit the kingdom of God.
So in that sense, at the very least, it certainly comprises a salvation issue.
End quote.
[00:07:16] Speaker A: Yeah, it's a pretty heavy deal there. And I think I said in that dicta, which is true, that I've known Jamie Smith, who's a professor at Calvin University, philosophy professor for probably about 10 years or so, and I think he's just very mistaken in his view of sexuality with respect to these issues. So a couple of thoughts. It was Jamie who said that said that Synod is making this quote a salvation issue by making it to the status of the confessional standards of the Christian Reformed Church now. And he used illustrations such as, well, there's no, not even the reformed faith says that if you don't affirm hato baptism, you're not a credible Christian. And so I think this is overreach. I think it's a propaganda sort of move to kind of create some fear or some trepidation here with respect to that. So what I simply did was took his nomenclature, a salvation issue, and then applied it in the area of deviant sexual behavior. And lo and behold, there's certain things where we can disagree. There are certain things where we can agree to disagree and do so agreeably, but sexuality is not one of them. This is where I think the analytic mistake occurs. And I'm simply pointing to the Apostle Paul here. Paul says that there's a series of categories of sins, including very overt sexual sins and practices in which you. It says, don't be deceived such that do this shall not inherit the kingdom of God. That to me sounds like that's speaking in terms of salvific ideas, that the end result of affirming and practicing these sorts of things has one standing outside the city of God, outside the realm of the kingdom of God. And so I'm simply saying that there's a, there's a jeopardization that occurs that anyone who, not mistakenly, but who affirmatively rejects the creational norms of sex, being heterosexual and within the bounds of marriage and saying not a big deal, we can disagree about that. To me, that suggests it certainly is a salvation issue. Now, it doesn't make all matters in the confession a salvation issue. A good example with that would be the distinction between the three forms of unity and the Westminster Standards as to the role of assurance. Is assurance the essence of faith or not? Well, there's a bunch of debate about that with respect to that. I don't think that is what jeopardizes someone's and says you shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But here we have an explicit linkage between sexual practices which are deviant and the inheritance or non inheritance of God. This does not suggest that we simply infallibly know with certitude the status of Dr. Smith's relationship with Christ. That's not really our call. Our call is to articulate these positions and from a worldview perspective saying this is not a healthy place and it puts one into jeopardy.
[00:10:34] Speaker B: Sharon from Raleigh, North Carolina writes, I noticed a few references lately to the Didache. What are your thoughts about the reading of non canonical books?
[00:10:45] Speaker A: Yeah, that's a very important question.
So the Didache comes from perhaps as early as 70 AD is a teaching that was gathered and passed along articulating in a non canonical way, in other words, non inspired way, the teaching of the apostles, including the writings that they had.
And so it's profitable to understand what the practices were and how the early church understood things. But if she's talking about the Apocrypha, the so called extra books of the Bible.
[00:11:24] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:11:24] Speaker A: The question then becomes, are those profitable to read? They may well be understanding that they are not inspired, inerrant, infallible. Yeah, Scripture, but again they were part of, excuse me, the Christian community and consequently provide insight into the context in which some of the inspired writers understood and were reading things and that sort of thing. It's like reading the Septuagint.
[00:11:52] Speaker B: Right.
[00:11:52] Speaker A: The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures is very valuable and in fact the New Testament writers often quote the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew at points. So can we learn that? Yes, I think the last thing I would say is, you know, we ought not to confuse this for being again canonical. But yeah, the Didache is not apocryphal book. The Didache is Just a collection of teaching. Yeah, but with respect to the apocryphal book, even traditions that are reformational, that use the apocryphal books even in a worship service will not say, you know, the word of the Lord, thanks be to God. They will say, thus ends the reading. They make a clear distinction that this is for edification historically, but it's not thanks be to God. This is, you know, the word of the Lord. And so I think with that kind of an idea in mind, there is some profit there. But of course, the word of the Lord is pure and the Lord did not disappoint, so that ought to be obviously the sum. But, you know, anyway, so that's kind of my take on that. I don't put a lot of time and effort with respect to that, but I don't think it's like verboten. I don't think it's like anthrax to be avoided, that sort of thing.
[00:13:17] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a helpful distinction, too. About the difference between didache and apocalyptic type literature, say Book of Enoch and Jeff, you're aware of this, and maybe even some of our listeners and readers through your writings have become aware there have been recent fad of men who have been pushing apocalyptic literature on podcasts and in written material, everything from angels inbreeding with humans to angels inbreeding with animals. And it's almost become canonical in their thinking and thus in becoming their worldview. So that was very helpful. I appreciate that.
[00:13:58] Speaker A: It's a great point. I'm glad you link that up, Joshua, because when people begin to develop this fascination, it's very easy for the evil one to again deceive us.
Satan doesn't serve spinach. Oh, yeah. Spend time on. Hey, you're talking about God and Jesus and the Bible, and this is just helping us understand.
And these people go off into them. Pretty soon they're talking about Bigfoot and 911 and just, you know, wackadoodle kind of stuff.
[00:14:27] Speaker B: Yeah. Pete from Austin, Texas writes some recent articles have surfaced about IVF and embryos. I know that TXC has discussed in a number of places this issue, but what kind of legislation should Christians be involved with in legislating on embryos and ivf? What should be done.
Sorry, what should be done with all the. What should be done with all the children posted in those tubes and weighted suspension?
[00:14:58] Speaker A: Yes.
I'm going to hit a pause button here and just simply say reading the Didache today would be equivalent to reading the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession it's that sort. That sort of thing.
[00:15:09] Speaker B: Right.
[00:15:10] Speaker A: And I just wanted to end with that. I kind of skipped my mind, okay, back to IVF and that sort of thing. So you are absolutely correct that what is in test tubes and freezers are children.
These are complete humans with inherent dignity in the imago dei. Every human that has ever existed began in that very stage. A human person in the embryonic stage. So this is very serious. And so we need to understand that. So how do we deal with this from a legal or from a public theology standpoint? Aside from the educative component, too many of the bioethics I know, whether they're Catholic or Protestant Reformational, will tell you that there's no ethical way to engage in in vitro fertilization. It simply can't be done. All along the lines ethically. And so that would tell us that we ought to, for the good of humanity and human flourishing, you know, ban that particular project.
Fortunately, our current president's all in on IVF and wants to make it proliferating and that sort of thing. The problem is you need to ask unfortunately, some detailed questions here. How do you get the eggs?
Well, you have to harvest them. To do that puts a woman under great stress and great pressure and it potentially compromises her ability to ovulate later in life because they give drugs to hyper ovulate. Then you have to harvest the eggs. Question 2. How do you get the sperm in order to fertilize the eggs? Well, you have to have the sperm. Well, the only way to quote, harvest the sperm is to have a man do a self act and create an emission that has that seminal fluid and hope. I'm not being too explicit here, but that's how you do it. And these particular places have all kinds of pornography to assist in that situation. That's a no go as well. So then what you do is you have to then join sperm and egg in hopes that there's fertilization that occurs.
When that happens, you then have questions of which is the healthiest embryo. And so there's an immediate selection that occurs. Now, I would say we talked about earlier the providence of God. That's not really up for us. And so what happens is then, even if the least healthy or the least vigorous embryos, and this is embryos that are fertilized and begin to multiply, begin to divide through meiosis, what happens? Well, even if they are not destroyed, I. E. Killed, those are the ones are segmented off, they're segregated, they're given this suspended animation and Put away. Okay, then what do you do with the, quote, healthier ones? You have to implant them. And typically what happens is they implant more than one. They take two or three healthy ones, hoping that some will then become implanted in the uterine wall. What about the others? Well, either they slough off and die, or as they gestate, they, quote, selectively reduce. That is to say, take out the, the ones that are not thriving as much, perfectly good humans, but just not as strong. Boy, that sounds like eugenics to me. And so you're, you're complicit in this. Now, some people would say, if you could just get one egg and one spermatozoa, join them and implant it, that solves that problem. Question, does it? Under the exposition of the Sixth Commandment, for example, those of us in the reformational tradition, there's particularly a larger catechism of Westminster. It talks about we ought to avoid those situations that, and I'm not quoting here, it's just conceptually that materially increase risk of, Risk of harm or death certainly seems to me implanting a human being who is not naturally conceived is something that does materially increase risk of harm or death. And so there's a number of ethical barriers we need to ask before we even get there. Okay, so understanding the process then tells us what should be done or what should not be done. I'm very grateful that the Alabama Supreme Court, in a decision, I don't know, a year and a half ago, made it very clear that these, quote, products of conception were humans. They were children. They're not property to be divided and discarded. And so we're seeing a good recognition by some very good justices. Make that call. We've got to ask those questions. What is it that we have? Is it. It's just like John Quincy Adams asked when he was defending the pirate slaves back in Amistad, he says, is a human, a specie of property? That's the question we have to ask. It's a pre political question. And so to answer our inquirer here, I say, before we get to the regulation and what should be regulated or how we should craft that, we've got to ask the pre political question, what is it? You know, if one of my sons, my back is turned when they were little and says, dad, can I kill it?
Well, the question is, what is it? If it's his little brother, the answer is no. If it's, you know, a spider, the answer is yes. Well, we've got to understand what it is with respect to that. And Then I think from that would flow prudential lines. And of course, we, you know, we can't just take. Even though I think morally there's a problem here with the technique where we are. Culturally, you're probably not going to get a complete ban immediately. So we've got to constrict it. We've got to regulate it in a way that gets rid of this wholesale, you know, big box storage of humans in the embryonic state.
[00:21:32] Speaker B: It's horrible. Goodness. This whole.
[00:21:35] Speaker A: It really is. It's. And it's a deception because people, oh, I'm. I'm for life.
[00:21:40] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:21:40] Speaker A: I'm for doing this. And what happens is you commoditize. And then, of course, oftentimes, and we. We need to be upfront. You know, infertility is a terrible tragedy. It's difficult. It's a result of the fall. It's. It's dangerous. It's bad.
[00:21:54] Speaker B: Right.
[00:21:55] Speaker A: But what happens is then we commoditize other humans. Well, I can't seem to conceive, so therefore I'm going to use Teresa's ovum or Frank's sperm, and I'm going to use Patricia's womb. And so then we begin commoditizing, segmenting up other humans so I can satisfy my wants and desires.
[00:22:16] Speaker B: Yeah, that has. You know, Jeffrey, you've. For years, I've. I've heard you talk about the dangers when we. When we make children commodities, and that you. You formulating that issue applies to so many helpful issues of the day. I mean, everything from adoption of children with. With the LGBTQ community down to this issue. And it's just been incredibly pedagogical and great analysis of looking at some of these issues.
[00:22:46] Speaker A: I'm grateful for that. You know, let me just give our readers a book. 19, I think. 84. Interesting year. Oliver O'Donovan wrote a book called Begotten or Made.
[00:22:57] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:22:58] Speaker A: Short book. Brilliant book. And that he. He predicted the whole trans stuff, clear back then. And it's just a great book with respect to that. And I have to say, since we're talking about that, or I'm talking about it, The. The United Kingdom Supreme Court has declared that a, quote, trans woman may not be classified as a woman. Well, that's just Right. That's just a metaphysical truth. And so a little bit of sobriety has invaded the law in the UK and let us hope that. Because I wrote a piece, as you know, for Truth Exchange in the Dicta, where I said, the elephant in the room is, can a man become a woman.
And the court needs to not dodge that issue. Well, thank God. Praise be to God. The High Court, which used to be called the House of Lords, by the way, now it's the Supreme Court of England, just came out with that particular ruling. That's exactly the right ruling.
[00:23:54] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:23:55] Speaker A: So there we are.
[00:23:56] Speaker B: Amen.
[00:23:56] Speaker A: Good things happen. We are not deterministic because there's moral agency. We can have progress. I mean, every time we talk to our children, we want progress, don't we?
[00:24:06] Speaker B: That's right. We do want progress.
[00:24:08] Speaker A: Expect it.
[00:24:08] Speaker B: Yes, indeed. Improve on your baptism. I tell my children, that's exactly.
[00:24:13] Speaker A: That's exactly the right language. Who are you?
[00:24:17] Speaker B: You belong to Christ.
This concludes a recording of the Director's Bag. For more resources from Truth Exchange, please visit us online at www.truthexchange.com. you can follow us on X as well as Facebook for more updates and content related to Truth Exchange. Be sure to join us next week week for more questions from the Director's Bag. I'm your host, Joshua Gilo, and this is the Truth Exchange podcast.
