A meme I responded to on Facebook:
Quick rebuttal. Regarding #2, it's an in-house debate among Christians whether human free will is libertarian or compatibilistic. As a Calvinist I think it's compatibilistic [as most knowledgeable Calvinists do].
Regarding #3, God didn't send the flood in judgment for man's use of free will, but for their SINFUL use of free will. God judges sinners for their sins and abuse of their God given free will. It's an in-house debate among Christians whether the flood was local or global. I think it was local and DID NOT encompass the entire Earth.
Regarding #4, God didn't randomly favor Abraham and his descendants. God, being omniscient [all-knowing] and omnisapient [all-wise] doesn't do anything randomly. Rather, God sovereignly choose Abraham's line in which to move forward His providential redemptive plan for history. To use his line to eventually bless the world [Gen. 18:18; 22:18; Gal. 3:8]. Because it would be through his line that the Messiah would come.
Regarding #5, it's an in-house debate in Christianity whether God still speaks outside of Scripture [i.e. the Bible]. I'm a continuationist and therefore believe that God does still speak and give revelations. But they are not on par with the authority of the Bible, nor can they be added to the already completed canon of Scripture. The Bible alone is the infallible Word of God, and is alone the universally binding public Revelation. All further revelations are private [rather than public] and not universally binding. They must be judged by the higher authority of Scripture, and rejected if they contradict Scripture. A good youtube channel with theologically responsible continuationists is The Remnant Radio YT channel.
Regarding #6, I'll address that in the next comment. [see below]
Regarding #7, JEsus didn't just "kill Himself". Jesus laid down His life as an atonement for sin to pay the penalty of sin on behalf of sinners so that they can be forgiven, justified, reconciled to God and adopted into God's family.
Regarding #8, it's just a variation on #5. So, read my response to #5 and then go do some research. I'd invite people to examine the evidence for modern miracles and the supernatural. Read:
Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,
Keener will be coming out with a new book on miracles in Oct. with 70% new material.
Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates
Read the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle as well as his book Dialogues on Miracle.
Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland is coming out with a book on miracles in November.
Regarding the first part of #6 . American slave owners often were hesitant to teach their slaves to read because the Exodus story in the Bible would plant the seed in their minds of deliverance from slavery like the Israelites received from the Pharoah of Egypt. The Bible isn't pro-slavery, it permits it. Regulation is not advocation. Just as the laws of divorce in the Bible isn't an advocation of divorce. The Bible doesn't advocate slavery as the ideal. There were different kinds of slavery in the Mosaic covenant. All of which were different from 1st century Roman slavery or American slavery.
As Steve Hays put it:
//2. Does the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?
i) The OT doesn’t endorse “slavery.” Lawmakers don’t endorse everything they regulate. Rather, the law sets boundaries. The law doesn’t prescribe an ideal.1
ii) “Slavery” is ambiguous. This can stand for very different arrangements. In the OT you have:
a) Indentured service for insolvency or property crimes. This is a form of financial restitution.
b) Enslavement for POWs or war captives. This is more humane than executing POWs. Repatriating enemy soldiers isn’t feasible inasmuch as they will simply regroup and resume hostilities.
c) Acquisition of foreigners. This is unenviable. However, living conditions in the ANE [[i.e. Ancient Near East]] were harsh. Poverty and famine were widespread. Better to be a slave in Israel, with the legal protections and provisions afforded you, than to starve to death. These laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They need to be understood in relation to the socioeconomic challenges of survival in the ANE.
G. Wenham, Story as Torah (Baker 2000), chap. 5.//
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/qa_steve_hays.html#slavery
Moreover, the seeds of abolishing slavery from advancing civilization are in the Bible. That's why the Abolition movement was started/headed by Christians. If the New Testament flat out condemned slavery, it would have been such a revolutionary teaching that it could have resulted in insurrection and the early Christians would have been immediately targeted and wiped out by the Romans. If instead of planting the SEEDS of abolition, the New Testament taught the idea of IMMEDIATE abolition, it would have spread too quickly in society that if slaves rebelled en mass both the owners and the slaves would have perished economically. Since, in such societies the slaves are almost as dependent on the owners, as the owners are on the slaves. It was almost a symbiotic relationship that benefited both.
However, with the seeds of the abolition of slavery in the New Testament's teaching, the acceptance and eventually the practice of slavery could be slowly phased out as it eventually did in Christian Europe and America.
Part of the Christian Gospel has strong themes of liberation.
2 Cor. 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom/liberty.
Jesus said in Luke 4 [quoting Isaiah 61]:
18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Regarding the 2nd part of #6. The Old Testament kosher dietary laws were a temporary injunction for the people of God because at the time redemption was only publicly limited to the Israelites. They are no longer binding. Since they no longer serve their purpose to be emblematic of the distinction between holy Hebrews and unholy Gentile Pagans, now that the Gospel has gone to the entire world. It's now being offered for all Gentile nations [i.e. the goyim]. There's nothing wrong with continuing to observe the kosher laws, but they are no longer binding. It would be wrong and legalistic to *require* people to observe them.
No comments:
Post a Comment