______,
I know things got a little heated over in that other thread.
I just wanted to make sure that everything was clear.
I do not believe I am better than you. I believe we are in the same predicament - we are both sinners. We are both dirty and vile in the sight of a holy God.
The Bible tells us about a God who will bring wrath and terrible judgment down upon sinners, because we break His law all the time. Homosexual sex is one way to break the law. I don't do that, but I break the law of God in countless other ways. Similarly, there are sins I do that you don't do. It doesn't matter how we break it; the problem is that we've broken it.
We deserve the penalty, which is eternal torment in Hell.
God offers us Jesus, to save us from our sin. If we put our full trust in Him AND IF WE REPENT OF OUR SIN, He will forgive us and give us the gift of eternal life. Repentance means turning away from sin, resolving to hate it and fight it. We won't always win and succeed, but we don't embrace it. We hate it. We say "I'm done with you" and turn away.
This is what the unrepentant homosexual DOES NOT DO. It's the same as an unrepentant thief, liar, witch, rapist, or murderer. If we don't repent, we don't have eternal life, and it's that simple.
If we continue to justify our sin and say "that thing that the BIble calls sinful, it's not really sinful", then that demonstrates that our hearts are not right before God still, that we have not hated sin, that we have not repented, that we have not turned away from sin.
Defending your "right" or something similar to perform homosexual sex acts demonstrates that your heart is still with the devil and your own selfishness, not with Jesus.
So I am pleading with you here. Repent of your sin. Trust Jesus. Ask Him to save you and help you live a holy life. Then walk in repentance of sin and refuse to give way to temptation, refuse to get into situations where you'll be strongly tempted. Read your Bible, obey it, find a church where people love Jesus and love sinners (because EVERYONE is a sinner; there's no place for holier-than-thou people in Jesus' church).
Will you do that?
If not, may I ask why not?
Peace to you.
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Monday, October 10, 2011
Monday, November 01, 2010
Dr Ken Pulliam, the Former Fundy, has died
The death of Dr Ken Pulliam, the author of the Former Fundy blog, is most definitely an occasion for mixed emotions among those who love Jesus.
On the one hand, the man had just submitted a chapter to an upcoming anti-Christian book edited by John Loftus. He just finished a massive blogseries in which he attempted to dismantle the wonderful doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ. He was an apostate from the faith after earning a PhD in theology from Bob Jones University. This last is what sets him apart from many - unlike a Dan Barker, whose education in Christianity is in reality minimal and easily seen to be shallow, a Bart Ehrman, whose post-grad education (Masters and PhD) is more along the lines of history and textual criticism, or a Richard Carrier whose PhD is in ancient history but who to my knowledge does not claim to have been a Christian, Pulliam's studies were in the very field that should lead one to know Jesus better - theology. He was in a position to know a great deal about the Savior, and yet though he believed in Him, he decided a life lived apart from Jesus would be better than a life lived with Him.
Which brings us to the other hand. Outside of a extraordinary change of heart that he had kept entirely secret, there can be virtually no doubt of his eternal location. His heart attack struck him suddenly, at a relatively young age (50), and probably allowed him little time between its onset and his transition into eternity to reflect and repent. He had just submitted an essay for a book called The End of Christianity. The Lord will judge him by his works in this life and find that he wanted to be far from Him. Thus Dr Pulliam will be granted exactly what he wanted in life - a life lived outside of the grace of Jesus.
Obviously the man knew a great deal about Jesus and yet wanted nothing to do with Him. He blogged a lot, attempting to turn people away from thinking that the Bible is true. He was running headlong toward this end; shall we shake our fists at God for giving the man what he wanted? And yet, we who know better and who love Jesus are sad to see another soul wallow in its self-deception to the bitter, bitter end. Dr Pulliam was a wolf who attempted to destroy the flock of God; I will not shed too many tears when animal control puts a bullet in the wolf who has been tearing up my sheep. Yet at the same time, I know the analogy of "wolf" does not entirely cover it. And I hope that Christians who know his family will reach out to them and offer them the hope of the good news of the forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Jesus' name and will weep with them.
It is interesting to see how uptight people get when it comes to death. Death truly is our great enemy and equalizer, yet how many are prepared for it? A few examples of what I mean:
1) I left a brief comment on Dr Pulliam's latest blogpost (obviously he had several ready for scheduled publishing):
2) Dr James McGrath devotes half of a brief post to eulogise Dr Pulliam. The other half he spends reaming me for my comment! Apparently I have "decided to bring yet further shame on (my)self and (my) faith tradition by harassing someone who has recently died and has no opportunity to respond". So, that little comment constitutes "harassment", eh?
One can only wonder about what sort of motivations are present in Dr McGrath, that the announcement of the man's death quickly steers away from the man to discuss a third-rate blogger like me. Sometimes McGrath could stand to think things through a little more thoroughly, to be sure.
But I would like to ask: What precisely is disgusting about my comment? The implication that the man might be spending eternity separated from the God he claimed not to believe in?
I know the answer - McGrath is a servant of the same being as Dr Pulliam was and is, and death makes such men nervous. Don't talk about man's eternal destiny after somebody died! It's not polite!
3) Ditto with the "The Church of Jesus Christ" blog, which calls me "disgusting".
Here is the comment I left (and which I do not expect them to publish):
Finally, God has already spoken on this topic. Here are some parts that will prove offensive to those who prefer to believe only part of what God has said and leave the rest to the side b/c it makes them uncomfortable.
Psalm 7:6 Arise, O LORD, in Your anger; Lift up Yourself against the rage of my adversaries,
And arouse Yourself for me; You have appointed judgment.
Psalm 3:7Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God! For You have smitten all my enemies on the cheek; You have shattered the teeth of the wicked.
Psalm 2: 1Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, 3"Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!"
4He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
5Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury...
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
Romans 2: 1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil...
On the one hand, the man had just submitted a chapter to an upcoming anti-Christian book edited by John Loftus. He just finished a massive blogseries in which he attempted to dismantle the wonderful doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ. He was an apostate from the faith after earning a PhD in theology from Bob Jones University. This last is what sets him apart from many - unlike a Dan Barker, whose education in Christianity is in reality minimal and easily seen to be shallow, a Bart Ehrman, whose post-grad education (Masters and PhD) is more along the lines of history and textual criticism, or a Richard Carrier whose PhD is in ancient history but who to my knowledge does not claim to have been a Christian, Pulliam's studies were in the very field that should lead one to know Jesus better - theology. He was in a position to know a great deal about the Savior, and yet though he believed in Him, he decided a life lived apart from Jesus would be better than a life lived with Him.
Which brings us to the other hand. Outside of a extraordinary change of heart that he had kept entirely secret, there can be virtually no doubt of his eternal location. His heart attack struck him suddenly, at a relatively young age (50), and probably allowed him little time between its onset and his transition into eternity to reflect and repent. He had just submitted an essay for a book called The End of Christianity. The Lord will judge him by his works in this life and find that he wanted to be far from Him. Thus Dr Pulliam will be granted exactly what he wanted in life - a life lived outside of the grace of Jesus.
Obviously the man knew a great deal about Jesus and yet wanted nothing to do with Him. He blogged a lot, attempting to turn people away from thinking that the Bible is true. He was running headlong toward this end; shall we shake our fists at God for giving the man what he wanted? And yet, we who know better and who love Jesus are sad to see another soul wallow in its self-deception to the bitter, bitter end. Dr Pulliam was a wolf who attempted to destroy the flock of God; I will not shed too many tears when animal control puts a bullet in the wolf who has been tearing up my sheep. Yet at the same time, I know the analogy of "wolf" does not entirely cover it. And I hope that Christians who know his family will reach out to them and offer them the hope of the good news of the forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Jesus' name and will weep with them.
It is interesting to see how uptight people get when it comes to death. Death truly is our great enemy and equalizer, yet how many are prepared for it? A few examples of what I mean:
1) I left a brief comment on Dr Pulliam's latest blogpost (obviously he had several ready for scheduled publishing):
Goodbye Dr Pulliam. Your pitiful arguments against Christianity will be missed. I pity you greatly.I have received several comments in response. I wouldn't call them consistent with atheistic reasoning. Pulliam wouldn't have lived more than a few more decades, and in 100 years, who will remember any of us?
-Rhology
2) Dr James McGrath devotes half of a brief post to eulogise Dr Pulliam. The other half he spends reaming me for my comment! Apparently I have "decided to bring yet further shame on (my)self and (my) faith tradition by harassing someone who has recently died and has no opportunity to respond". So, that little comment constitutes "harassment", eh?
One can only wonder about what sort of motivations are present in Dr McGrath, that the announcement of the man's death quickly steers away from the man to discuss a third-rate blogger like me. Sometimes McGrath could stand to think things through a little more thoroughly, to be sure.
But I would like to ask: What precisely is disgusting about my comment? The implication that the man might be spending eternity separated from the God he claimed not to believe in?
I know the answer - McGrath is a servant of the same being as Dr Pulliam was and is, and death makes such men nervous. Don't talk about man's eternal destiny after somebody died! It's not polite!
3) Ditto with the "The Church of Jesus Christ" blog, which calls me "disgusting".
Here is the comment I left (and which I do not expect them to publish):
Hello,
Thanks for your thoughts. It is apparent that you have not really understood who Dr Pulliam was. One wonders whether you read his blog very much. He and I have had extensive conversations within the past year, and he has just finished a series in which he did everything within his (limited) power to kick dust on the glorious and wonderful doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ. He had a PhD in theology from a Christian university (yes, Bob Jones U is offbeat and has problems, but they’re still Christian) and yet turned away from the Christian faith and did his best over the course of many years to destroy it in the minds of others.
He was not your ally. He was not an unwitting pawn. He was a wolf. Biblically speaking, the only way he could have been worse for the Body of Christ would have been if he had stayed within its ranks to wreak havoc from the inside.
I guess I don’t understand what’s so disgusting here. Is it that I said I pity the man? He had just submitted a chapter in an upcoming antitheist book, and died suddenly. Where do *you* think he is? That’s why I pity him. You sort of make it sound like I am dancing with joy at his death. If that’s what you think, you are very wrong.
Peace and less prejudice to you,
Rhology
Finally, God has already spoken on this topic. Here are some parts that will prove offensive to those who prefer to believe only part of what God has said and leave the rest to the side b/c it makes them uncomfortable.
Psalm 7:6 Arise, O LORD, in Your anger; Lift up Yourself against the rage of my adversaries,
And arouse Yourself for me; You have appointed judgment.
Psalm 3:7Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God! For You have smitten all my enemies on the cheek; You have shattered the teeth of the wicked.
Psalm 2: 1Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, 3"Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!"
4He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
5Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury...
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
Romans 2: 1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil...
Monday, February 01, 2010
Eastern Orthodoxy boiled down
ME: Ah, so God annihilates His holy law. Yes, that makes your position a lot less blasphemous.
DAVIDW: And what am I supposed to say to this? Yes, God is merciful beyond measure -- whether you like it or not. (source)
----
JOHN: Is it really forgiveness when God took his pound of flesh?
ME: Yes, b/c the offender is forgiven, and Jesus out of love took the punishment. God's law and justice are preserved in integrity and truth, His holiness is unimpeded, the elect get the benefit, and Jesus pays the cost out of His generosity.
Contrast that with the EO system in which the law turns out to be no big deal at all.
JOHN: I don't know where you get this idea. Christ died to abolish the law. How does that make it no big deal? (source)
----
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE".(source)
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (source)
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail." (source)
DAVIDW: And what am I supposed to say to this? Yes, God is merciful beyond measure -- whether you like it or not. (source)
----
JOHN: Is it really forgiveness when God took his pound of flesh?
ME: Yes, b/c the offender is forgiven, and Jesus out of love took the punishment. God's law and justice are preserved in integrity and truth, His holiness is unimpeded, the elect get the benefit, and Jesus pays the cost out of His generosity.
Contrast that with the EO system in which the law turns out to be no big deal at all.
JOHN: I don't know where you get this idea. Christ died to abolish the law. How does that make it no big deal? (source)
----
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE".(source)
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (source)
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail." (source)
Friday, August 28, 2009
Bart Ehrman has a Ph.D in New Testament
It is important, I think, to realize that the Bible has a wide range of answers to the problem of suffering b/c this realization reveals the problem of thinking that the Bible has one simple answer to every issue. Many people in our world take a smorgasbord approach to the Bible, picking and choosing what suits them and their views without acknowledging that the Bible is an extremely complex and intricate concatenation of views, perspectives, and ideas. There are millions of people in our world, for example, who suffer social estrangement b/c of their sexual orientation. Some of this social alienation originates among simpleminded Bible believers who insist that gay relationships are condemned in Scripture. As it turns out, that is a debated issue, one on which serious scholars disagree.
But apart from that, this condemnation of gay relations "because the Bible condemns it" is a case of people choosing to accept the parts of the Bible they want to accept and ignoring everything else. The same books that condemn same-sex relations, for example, also require people to stone their children to death if they are disobedient, to execute anyone who does any work on Saturday or who eats pork chops, and to condemn anyone who wears a shirt made of two kinds of fabric. No special emphasis is placed on one of these laws over the others - they are all part of the biblical law. Yet, in parts of society, gay relations are condemned, while eating a ham sandwich during a lunch break on a Saturday workday is perfectly acceptable.
(Source: Bart Ehrman, "God's Problem", 2008, p. 17)
(Which is the book I'm reading right now.)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Breakin' the Law, breakin' the Law
Let's say someone has cited several psgs from Leviticus and suggested I pick and choose which to follow.
Not I, however, but the New Testament itself picks and chooses, and explains why.
Some parts of the Old Testament Law deal with
1) ceremonial/ritual purity,
2) punishments for breaking purity laws,
3) morality,
4) punishments for breaking moral laws,
5) civil laws, and
6) punishments for breaking civil laws.
Remember OT Israel was a theocracy, where God ruled the people directly and appointed human proxies; judges, high priests, and (reluctantly) kings later on.
1 & 2 - OT Israel had a state religion - the worship of the LORD. There are OT Laws that deal with the permissibility of approaching the sacrifices for priests, of cleanliness for priests and laypeople, of entering the temple, etc. One could become unclean by handling unclean food, going near a dead body, contracting a disease, etc. Ceremonial purity was necessary for several reasons:
-To set apart the LORD as absolutely holy in the minds of the worshipers.
-To set a standard of rigor for approaching Him; one must not do so flippantly.
-To set the Israelites apart from the surrounding pagan societies' religious practices.
-To foreshadow the coming of the Messiah.
Such laws are fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah, as the Epistle to the Hebrews goes to great pains to explain. My cleanliness and purity to approach God is based on Christ's perfect righteousness, granted to me by His grace on the basis of faith only, rather than rituals that I must perform. When I come to God now, God sees Christ's righteousness and perfection, not my impurity and uncleanness.
If we want to get technical, God would also see a true believer in OT Israel as clothed in Christ's righteousness. The difference is in the command for the actions of the community, and in the community itself. OT Israel was a community where everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, had the same obligations, whereas the New Testament church has different kinds of obligations b/c it has a different kind of membership. Salvation is the same (faith in Christ as Savior, not by anything we can do) but the context in which I live has been defined differently by God.
3 - Expands on the moral law that was already in place. This is an important point - the Mosaic Law was not the 1st occurrence of the moral law.
The moral code was partly innate and stated in forms here and there before the Mosaic Law. How did Adam and Eve know they weren't supposed to eat from the tree? God told them. How did Cain know he wasn't supposed to murder Abel? Perhaps God told him, perhaps it was an innate knowledge – in either case, he knew. How did Noah know the rest of humanity was "wicked" before the Mosaic Law? How did Abraham know that he should honor his guests w/ food and hospitality? How did Lot know that homosexual assault on his guests was wicked? That law comes from God and has been made known (mysteriously) by God to humanity.
Thus, just as the moral law did not originate with the Mosaic Law, neither does it come to an end when the Mosaic Law is fulfilled in Christ. One could think of moral laws as those which reflect the pre-Mosaic Law-law. They are thus still in force.
4 - That is not to say that the punishments for breaking the moral law remain the same.
A few examples:
-Murder
Genesis 9:6 - Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
Here capital punishment for murder is laid down in the earliest days of human existence. The Mosaic Law continues that punishment. Romans 13 refers to "the sword" to punish evildoers that the state is justified in wielding.
On the other hand...
-Homosexual sex
No explicit condemnation exists until the Mosaic Law (though it was obviously known to be wicked before), and the punishment is execution.
But the New Testament gives no provision for the execution of homosexual offenders. Rather Romans 1 describes the penalty for such as spiritual death (and, interestingly, mentions homosexual activity as a penalty itself, a judgment for sin, not just a cause of judgment).
5 & 6 - These laws relate to how the civil society was to work. Property laws, safety, restitution, cities of refuge, etc. Obviously such things do not apply when one does not live in OT Israel.
The books of Romans (specifically Rom 13) and 1 Peter teach the student of the Bible how to live in a non-ancient-Hebrew-theocratic society.
All the examples that people usually cite (to trip up the Christian) relate to punishments prescribed for the Hebrew theocratic society, even though some of the moral violations remain moral violations today (ie, adultery).
Strictly speaking, civil laws ARE moral laws, as I've pointed out before. Any law is a moral statement.
It's wrong to go faster than 25 mph in a school zone.
It's wrong to burn down someone's property.
It's wrong to hold up a bank.
It's perfectly fine to stick a scalpel into a nearly-born baby's brain and then dismember her and 'birth' her that way.
It's perfectly fine for the gov't to force me to give them lots of the money that I earned.
It's wrong to kidnap a woman in order to protect her baby from the scalpel at the abortuary to which she is en route.
Etc.
But of course, not all moral laws are civil laws, and not all civil laws are moral. It's not objectively wrong to drive 30 mph on a certain road; it is proscribed when a school is constructed on said road and concern for children's safety provokes the passing of a 25 mph speed limit law. Conversely, it is objectively wrong to murder a baby, yet that is perfectly legal in many cases in the US.
This does not mean the punishments remain or should remain the same; it means they remain violations of the moral code. Executing convicted adulterers, say, was a command for the ancient Hebrews only to follow; while adultery itself remains a moral violation, resulting in a physical/temporal/earthbound penalty (or lack thereof) to be prescribed by the society in which it is performed, it results "merely" in spiritual death and further condemnation for the one who does not have saving faith in Jesus Christ.
The civil gov'ts in countries in which Christians live make laws which Christians are obligated to follow, except when they command us to do sthg contrary to God's commandment (ie, the moral law).
So, quick review:
-Moral, civil, and ceremonial laws exist in the Mosaic Law.
-Ceremonial/purity laws are fulfilled in Christ.
-Civil laws were applicable to OT Israel, which society no longer exists.
-Moral law violations remain violations, but their penalties are in many (or even most) cases different now.
I imagine I'll be referring people back to this post quite alot, but only time will tell.
Not I, however, but the New Testament itself picks and chooses, and explains why.
Some parts of the Old Testament Law deal with
1) ceremonial/ritual purity,
2) punishments for breaking purity laws,
3) morality,
4) punishments for breaking moral laws,
5) civil laws, and
6) punishments for breaking civil laws.
Remember OT Israel was a theocracy, where God ruled the people directly and appointed human proxies; judges, high priests, and (reluctantly) kings later on.
1 & 2 - OT Israel had a state religion - the worship of the LORD. There are OT Laws that deal with the permissibility of approaching the sacrifices for priests, of cleanliness for priests and laypeople, of entering the temple, etc. One could become unclean by handling unclean food, going near a dead body, contracting a disease, etc. Ceremonial purity was necessary for several reasons:
-To set apart the LORD as absolutely holy in the minds of the worshipers.
-To set a standard of rigor for approaching Him; one must not do so flippantly.
-To set the Israelites apart from the surrounding pagan societies' religious practices.
-To foreshadow the coming of the Messiah.
Such laws are fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah, as the Epistle to the Hebrews goes to great pains to explain. My cleanliness and purity to approach God is based on Christ's perfect righteousness, granted to me by His grace on the basis of faith only, rather than rituals that I must perform. When I come to God now, God sees Christ's righteousness and perfection, not my impurity and uncleanness.
If we want to get technical, God would also see a true believer in OT Israel as clothed in Christ's righteousness. The difference is in the command for the actions of the community, and in the community itself. OT Israel was a community where everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, had the same obligations, whereas the New Testament church has different kinds of obligations b/c it has a different kind of membership. Salvation is the same (faith in Christ as Savior, not by anything we can do) but the context in which I live has been defined differently by God.
3 - Expands on the moral law that was already in place. This is an important point - the Mosaic Law was not the 1st occurrence of the moral law.
The moral code was partly innate and stated in forms here and there before the Mosaic Law. How did Adam and Eve know they weren't supposed to eat from the tree? God told them. How did Cain know he wasn't supposed to murder Abel? Perhaps God told him, perhaps it was an innate knowledge – in either case, he knew. How did Noah know the rest of humanity was "wicked" before the Mosaic Law? How did Abraham know that he should honor his guests w/ food and hospitality? How did Lot know that homosexual assault on his guests was wicked? That law comes from God and has been made known (mysteriously) by God to humanity.
Thus, just as the moral law did not originate with the Mosaic Law, neither does it come to an end when the Mosaic Law is fulfilled in Christ. One could think of moral laws as those which reflect the pre-Mosaic Law-law. They are thus still in force.
4 - That is not to say that the punishments for breaking the moral law remain the same.
A few examples:
-Murder
Genesis 9:6 - Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
Here capital punishment for murder is laid down in the earliest days of human existence. The Mosaic Law continues that punishment. Romans 13 refers to "the sword" to punish evildoers that the state is justified in wielding.
On the other hand...
-Homosexual sex
No explicit condemnation exists until the Mosaic Law (though it was obviously known to be wicked before), and the punishment is execution.
But the New Testament gives no provision for the execution of homosexual offenders. Rather Romans 1 describes the penalty for such as spiritual death (and, interestingly, mentions homosexual activity as a penalty itself, a judgment for sin, not just a cause of judgment).
5 & 6 - These laws relate to how the civil society was to work. Property laws, safety, restitution, cities of refuge, etc. Obviously such things do not apply when one does not live in OT Israel.
The books of Romans (specifically Rom 13) and 1 Peter teach the student of the Bible how to live in a non-ancient-Hebrew-theocratic society.
All the examples that people usually cite (to trip up the Christian) relate to punishments prescribed for the Hebrew theocratic society, even though some of the moral violations remain moral violations today (ie, adultery).
Strictly speaking, civil laws ARE moral laws, as I've pointed out before. Any law is a moral statement.
It's wrong to go faster than 25 mph in a school zone.
It's wrong to burn down someone's property.
It's wrong to hold up a bank.
It's perfectly fine to stick a scalpel into a nearly-born baby's brain and then dismember her and 'birth' her that way.
It's perfectly fine for the gov't to force me to give them lots of the money that I earned.
It's wrong to kidnap a woman in order to protect her baby from the scalpel at the abortuary to which she is en route.
Etc.
But of course, not all moral laws are civil laws, and not all civil laws are moral. It's not objectively wrong to drive 30 mph on a certain road; it is proscribed when a school is constructed on said road and concern for children's safety provokes the passing of a 25 mph speed limit law. Conversely, it is objectively wrong to murder a baby, yet that is perfectly legal in many cases in the US.
This does not mean the punishments remain or should remain the same; it means they remain violations of the moral code. Executing convicted adulterers, say, was a command for the ancient Hebrews only to follow; while adultery itself remains a moral violation, resulting in a physical/temporal/earthbound penalty (or lack thereof) to be prescribed by the society in which it is performed, it results "merely" in spiritual death and further condemnation for the one who does not have saving faith in Jesus Christ.
The civil gov'ts in countries in which Christians live make laws which Christians are obligated to follow, except when they command us to do sthg contrary to God's commandment (ie, the moral law).
So, quick review:
-Moral, civil, and ceremonial laws exist in the Mosaic Law.
-Ceremonial/purity laws are fulfilled in Christ.
-Civil laws were applicable to OT Israel, which society no longer exists.
-Moral law violations remain violations, but their penalties are in many (or even most) cases different now.
I imagine I'll be referring people back to this post quite alot, but only time will tell.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Contrasting atheistic preferences and biblical law
Happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for many things and for the disappointments from the Lord this year (heck, in this past 7 weeks). May His name be praised forever.
I am also very thankful that I'm not an atheist like I used to be. I've been talking to some verbose atheists over here and though I can't match them keystroke for keystroke b/c of time constraints, they've given a good opportunity to contrast the worldview presented to us by atheism and the biblical worldview. Most of their arguments against God's existence have been based on moral objections, so I thought I'd respond in this way.
I'm going to make clearer the difference between the atheistic worldview's ability to make value judgments that go beyond personal preference and the biblical worldview's ability to do the same.
What I mean when I say "an objective morality" is this: a moral system that is prescriptive and that is true whether or not anyone believes it or not. With that in mind...
Atheistic worldview
We haven't seen a justification yet for saying that, say, raping little girls is definitely, always morally wrong.
Biblical worldview
Raping little girls is wrong because:
1) Rape is specifically proscribed.
2) Rape is also theft, which is specifically proscribed.
3) Rape is also wanton aggression against another, which is specifically proscribed.
OK, so WHY are these things proscribed?
Because they violate the command of God, Who has given a law of behavior by which His creation has a responsibility to abide.
WHY did He give this law this way?
Because these laws are how He is. The law He gives flows out of Who and how He is. He is holy; His law demands holiness (and describes how to be holy). He is good; His law demands goodness (and describes how to be good). He loves truth; His law demands truthfulness (and describes how to be truthful). Etc.
What makes these laws good?
-We need SOME standard to tell what good and bad are. In atheism, that's totally lacking.
These laws from God are backed up with the force of justice. He will punish all breakers of the law with eternal torment, so evil is met with just judgment. The law has a policeman and judge as well - God.
In other words, the statement "Raping little girls is always wrong for everyone at all times everywhere." is true, everywhere, for all people, at all times.
That's what I mean when I say "objectively wrong". It doesn't depend on my personal preference. It doesn't depend on society. It doesn't depend on whether my personal preference changes at a different time in my life. And if I break that law, I'll be punished, JUSTLY, for the crime.
Finally, this is most important - EVERYone has broken the law of God, so EVERYone deserves the eternal torment as a just reward for his/her actions. But God took the torment and death (the punishment) on Himself in the person of Jesus Christ as a substitute for all who will repent and believe. As the gospel of John says: "He who believes in the Son is not judged, but he who does not believe in the Son is judged already."
Now then, as we've seen so far, the option offered so far here is either question-begging (more on that in a sec) or based on nothing more than personal preference.
-If it's based on personal preference or societal preference, we have no standard; we just have a DESCRIPTION. Is does not imply ought, remember?
-Also, if personal/societal preference, there is no mechanism in place by which we might know whether the person's preference is good or bad. It just IS. And it ends at the tip of your nose; my personal preference might be totally different. And there's no way to judge between them.
-You may have noticed that I often ask WHY your standards for morality are the standards. What I've seen so far is:
**I am a member of a species of social animal with traits common to that species, one of which is empathy for others; Empathically, I can put myself in the shoes of a victim
**secular morality is about getting along with your fellow humans
**The justification is that the foundation of human society is respect for other human beings.
Perhaps more, but that's so far.
But **WHY** are these good? What makes respecting fellow humans good?
You might say:
We recoil from pain, we don't like to suffer. So it's wrong to inflict suffering.
But is it not the case that, while some don't like to suffer, others welcome it, others inflict it on themselves, and still others enjoy inflicting suffering on others?
Why did you arbitrarily choose the former rather than one of these latter options?
You might say:
If people inflict suffering, it's usually in the name of a god.
That's a distracting side issue and begging the question again. Tell me WHY it's wrong.
Thomas said:
It's necessary to proscribe the inflicting of suffering on others in order to sustain society.
That's begging the question again.
WHY do we prefer to sustain society? Some people prefer to sustain it, others prefer to scramble it, others prefer to remake it like they want it, others prefer total anarchy, still others want to raze certain societies of the face of the earth.
Why did you arbitrarily choose to sustain society? Why not one of these other options?
All this to say - you PREFER it that way, but you don't have a good foundational reason to beyond that.
Contrast that with the above-described biblical view of morality.
Now, I'd like to call attention to this comment:
This is a brilliant illustration of what I mean.
Yes, it is a terrible mistake to think that it might be best that a moral judgment ("Raping little girls is always wrong for everyone at all times everywhere.") be consistent forever. Is this where an atheistic morality leads us?
I am also very thankful that I'm not an atheist like I used to be. I've been talking to some verbose atheists over here and though I can't match them keystroke for keystroke b/c of time constraints, they've given a good opportunity to contrast the worldview presented to us by atheism and the biblical worldview. Most of their arguments against God's existence have been based on moral objections, so I thought I'd respond in this way.
I'm going to make clearer the difference between the atheistic worldview's ability to make value judgments that go beyond personal preference and the biblical worldview's ability to do the same.
What I mean when I say "an objective morality" is this: a moral system that is prescriptive and that is true whether or not anyone believes it or not. With that in mind...
Atheistic worldview
We haven't seen a justification yet for saying that, say, raping little girls is definitely, always morally wrong.
Biblical worldview
Raping little girls is wrong because:
1) Rape is specifically proscribed.
2) Rape is also theft, which is specifically proscribed.
3) Rape is also wanton aggression against another, which is specifically proscribed.
OK, so WHY are these things proscribed?
Because they violate the command of God, Who has given a law of behavior by which His creation has a responsibility to abide.
WHY did He give this law this way?
Because these laws are how He is. The law He gives flows out of Who and how He is. He is holy; His law demands holiness (and describes how to be holy). He is good; His law demands goodness (and describes how to be good). He loves truth; His law demands truthfulness (and describes how to be truthful). Etc.
What makes these laws good?
-We need SOME standard to tell what good and bad are. In atheism, that's totally lacking.
These laws from God are backed up with the force of justice. He will punish all breakers of the law with eternal torment, so evil is met with just judgment. The law has a policeman and judge as well - God.
In other words, the statement "Raping little girls is always wrong for everyone at all times everywhere." is true, everywhere, for all people, at all times.
That's what I mean when I say "objectively wrong". It doesn't depend on my personal preference. It doesn't depend on society. It doesn't depend on whether my personal preference changes at a different time in my life. And if I break that law, I'll be punished, JUSTLY, for the crime.
Finally, this is most important - EVERYone has broken the law of God, so EVERYone deserves the eternal torment as a just reward for his/her actions. But God took the torment and death (the punishment) on Himself in the person of Jesus Christ as a substitute for all who will repent and believe. As the gospel of John says: "He who believes in the Son is not judged, but he who does not believe in the Son is judged already."
Now then, as we've seen so far, the option offered so far here is either question-begging (more on that in a sec) or based on nothing more than personal preference.
-If it's based on personal preference or societal preference, we have no standard; we just have a DESCRIPTION. Is does not imply ought, remember?
-Also, if personal/societal preference, there is no mechanism in place by which we might know whether the person's preference is good or bad. It just IS. And it ends at the tip of your nose; my personal preference might be totally different. And there's no way to judge between them.
-You may have noticed that I often ask WHY your standards for morality are the standards. What I've seen so far is:
**I am a member of a species of social animal with traits common to that species, one of which is empathy for others; Empathically, I can put myself in the shoes of a victim
**secular morality is about getting along with your fellow humans
**The justification is that the foundation of human society is respect for other human beings.
Perhaps more, but that's so far.
But **WHY** are these good? What makes respecting fellow humans good?
You might say:
We recoil from pain, we don't like to suffer. So it's wrong to inflict suffering.
But is it not the case that, while some don't like to suffer, others welcome it, others inflict it on themselves, and still others enjoy inflicting suffering on others?
Why did you arbitrarily choose the former rather than one of these latter options?
You might say:
If people inflict suffering, it's usually in the name of a god.
That's a distracting side issue and begging the question again. Tell me WHY it's wrong.
Thomas said:
It's necessary to proscribe the inflicting of suffering on others in order to sustain society.
That's begging the question again.
WHY do we prefer to sustain society? Some people prefer to sustain it, others prefer to scramble it, others prefer to remake it like they want it, others prefer total anarchy, still others want to raze certain societies of the face of the earth.
Why did you arbitrarily choose to sustain society? Why not one of these other options?
All this to say - you PREFER it that way, but you don't have a good foundational reason to beyond that.
Contrast that with the above-described biblical view of morality.
Now, I'd like to call attention to this comment:
One of the mistakes inherent in your theistic worldview is to think moral judgments will always be consistent.
This is a brilliant illustration of what I mean.
Yes, it is a terrible mistake to think that it might be best that a moral judgment ("Raping little girls is always wrong for everyone at all times everywhere.") be consistent forever. Is this where an atheistic morality leads us?
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Gospel and the OT Law. Orthodox has no idea.
OK, I spoke too harshly about Orthodox's disingenuousness recently. He has made many comments I consider disingenuous, but this one in particular that I called out was off.
On the other hand, let's consider this brilliant input into our discussion:
I recommend that Orthodox read the Epistle to the Hebrews. And then he can ask himself how the noble Bereans went about testing what the Apostle Paul said when he brought the Gospel to them and they tested it by the Scripture (ie, the Old Testament).
He is also welcome to come to my church anytime where, if he cares to, he can learn about God's Word.
On the other hand, let's consider this brilliant input into our discussion:
WIll (sic) you test the NT canon against the previous torah? Would you have tested Paul's oral traditions in the early church against the torah? Good luck justifying Paul's gospel against the torah.It's so funny, when I think about it. This guy Orthodox is clearly skilled in polemics against Protestants and has demonstrated some knowledge of the Bible and some knowledge of Church Fathers' writings. And yet he exhibits total cluelessness as relates to a fundamentally important idea in the New Testament.
I recommend that Orthodox read the Epistle to the Hebrews. And then he can ask himself how the noble Bereans went about testing what the Apostle Paul said when he brought the Gospel to them and they tested it by the Scripture (ie, the Old Testament).
He is also welcome to come to my church anytime where, if he cares to, he can learn about God's Word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)