The other day I was working on a Bible Study and came across some material that I enjoyed. It was really reflective. I spent some time looking at it but didn’t have the time at that moment to read it through completely. In that my rememberer isn’t as active as it used to be I copied the introduction and placed it on my web-site so as not to loose it. I had the intentions of reading all the material and make a critique of it so that if it were to be linked to our Bible Study and we could have the confidence that it was worthy and true to God’s Word.

I copied and pasted 3 or 4 paragraphs, and saved it in HTML for the web. At the end of the page I linked it directly to the Web Page I had found it on. Nowhere did I place my name – except for my usual E-mail address as placed at the bottom of every page I post. I then forgot about it.

The thing that attracted me to this individual’s theory was the simple and easy to understand way in which it was presented. This is important when it comes to theory, doctrines, theology & philosophy. On the internet ~ if one can’t state one’s thesis in a paragraph or two, make it easy to understand and convincing in some way ~ you won’t loose the attention of the reader. This is why I try and place links to such devices as I write. For instance — above I have used some words and have linked them below for a illustration. If you have difficulty with something you can click on it and you will be taken to the origin or expiation. Theory! Doctrine! Or Philosophy!

The subject of identifying sources has become more important and to the fore-front of our attention by recent revelations of school children’s rush of cheating on tests and school work. At the same time that the computer and world wide web has made it easier for children to do school work and more material is available every day and indexed on the internet. To complete a term paper today a student no longer needs to go to the library and search endlessly through cards with stuff scribbled on them to find a particular book on any subject. They can simply log-on and pose a quote, question or statement and do the search. Instantly what you are looking for is there and it can be copied, printed or whatever. The down side for the student is the same fact that all this data and search engines are available to the teacher as well. They can do some simple maneuver and conclude if the student is cheating, plagiarizing material or whatever.

In that I have recently had a rather embarrassing experience concerning the above mentioned Web-Page — and in that I have spent the whole last day of last year and now, all today — January 1, 2003, on this subject, I have decided to publish this document on:

“The Doctrine Of Originality.”

We will not claim any authorship here for reasons to be discussed in this “Doctrine.” The reason will become obvious as you follow along in the study.

I. The Doctrine of Sources

1. This subject has troubled students and scholars alike for as many years as years have been called such.

A. What is a Student? One that studies material some one other than the student has passed on orally or in printed form. On this subject we will spend a bit of time by trying to answer questions that immediately come to mind. What is “material?” In our case, material can be described thus:

1) A thought, idea, explanation or study of such. Orally passed on is such as the lecture given in a class & “hand-outs” or other printed matter on the same subject. I will share an experience I had on this subject and believe in doing thus the point will be driven home. Remember, we want to keep it simple. At my first year of study at the Divinity School at Duke University, the very first day, in a subject (class) dealing with pastoral care, our professor gave us a hand out and we were told to keep it, learn it, memorize it and understand that we would earn 50% of our grade in that class by how well we knew the chart. As it turned out, we had to memorize the entire chart, word for word, front and back. We were even required to draw the lines as was in the original chart. And, this is what we did. We came to take the test at the end of the term prepared to write down, including the horizontal and vertical lines on both pages of the chart what is known as, “The Grieving Process.” It has escaped me who it was that wrote the text book we used. The name of the class professor has escaped me. Indeed, I would flunk the test today. However, I shall never forget the process of being made a parrot. All my studies, first at grade school, high school and then Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and finally at Duke University consisted in a series of parrot exercises. I had to learn how to parrot philosophy, doctrine, theology & so-forth based on what it was that the particular professor demanded so as to pass the grade and move on.

I found early on that to be a good parrot one had to be able to dissect information, re-word it, and re-write it in such a way as to demonstrate one has a working knowledge of the subject dissected while leaving “tracks” . . . “tracks” meaning “foot-notes” citing author, book and publisher. So, we earned a grade based upon our ability to do the above. We became good parrots. Now, back to “The Grief Process.” Was our dear teacher, the professor, the ORIGINATOR of the material? No. Someone else wrote the book in which he found it — likely from some professor at Duke some years ago when he took the same class. Was the author of the book the originator of the “Grief Process” chart we parroted? Not likely. He was but a parrot of a parrot of a parrot of a parrot — you see where we are going with this. It is doubtful to me that this professor ever had an original idea, doctrine or theological theory.

There is nothing original about what we do here and now. I am more than convinced that someone has sat themselves down and wrote about this very same subject innumerable times. Different approaches? Yes. Different in substance? No.

The OBJECT discussed here is to make the point that the only source of knowledge is the Lord. All wisdom comes for Jesus Christ, the Word. No matter what you put down in words — is and always will be the end result of what it is that you have spent your life attending to. You have heard it said, “You are what you eat.” As well, “You are (mentally) what you read.” If you have read the Bible as you should, most of what you have to say will be but a dim reflection of that Word. We see through a glass darkly. Others see through the glass you present to them with a handicap of your dim view of the subject matter you have mentally consumed. The further away we get from God’s Word, the dimmer the glass will be. The parroted information we put into words will only be as clear as an old mirror that has the backing deteriorated by age — dim at best. We have to strain to see, if possible, what is clearly from God or from our adversary, the devil.

2). Now, at this point, one might try to be clever and suggest that some subjects can provide ways to be original. I can’t think of one. Can you? Name me one course of study that can be said to be original. Original in that the one holding forth the Course of Study is the one that was the originator of the theory, science or geological reference.

In our study of the Bible book, Job, we see where there is nothing new in science . . . and much else we find in our universe of thought or fact. For instance, if something IS a fact, it can not be claimed to be discussed as your or my original thought. We can only pass on our observations. Some observe better than others. The ability to OBSERVE does not make one original. We have an example of what man thinks originality to be — Evolution!

What one can say about the illustration we used to begin our study of the Doctrine of Originality, the individual that wrote the introduction to a theory I spoke of, is that he had read many books written by many scholars that has over the years been studied by many scholars and their observations passed down through the ages in many languages and forms.

I give the author credit for the talent he shares of bringing much information together and allowing us to see his condensation of the subject matter. Does his talent make him correct in his theory? No. Is his theory correct? I don’t know. That has to be exposed by the light of the Word of God. In that he shows great talent and originality in style does it make what he has to say correct? No, not exactly. We are told to try the spirits to see if they be of God. The only way to do this is to read what it is that God has to say on the subject. If there is anything to be said about it God will have said it. Or, in correction, the great deceiver has tried in some way to defile it.

We must not limit our exploration of God’s Word to something someone has written trying to explain what is un-explainable. Should we read such limited resources? Of course we should. Then we should trust the Holy Spirit to illuminate God’s Word in relation to what it is that is being discussed. I’ve said all of that to try and say this. There is NO NEW THING. There are NEW IDEAS. These ideas are but what it is that has influenced our thinking. Can we learn? Of course we can. However, if one is scholarly concerning some subject, it only means that individual has the ability to parrot ideas of many others.

We have seen the statement, “I (or this or that individual) has written many books.” What this means is — that individual is a great parrot! The individual has developed a talent enabling him to remember much of what he read and is able to be effective in placing what was gleaned from others in a way that we are able to understand to one degree or another. These OTHERS did the same and so-forth. Some are better at this that others.

In reality, the shadow of man’s thoughts over the years have cast their long and ragged fingers between us and the light. That shadow becomes a bit of what we are and become. Our first effort ought to be to go back to the source — the Lord God. Then, we should be careful about trying to claim the credit for what we know or pass on in the form of letters and words. It might be that the truth of the words, “. . . . we have had our reward and spent it.” will come to life in our own future experience. . .

In conclusion. Do I think you should identify yourself, associate yourself with what it is that you share with others. Of course you should. Should you claim credit for what it is that someone else has passed down to you. Of course not. So, my friend, what new thing do you have for me today?