The Law and The Redemptive Process

The Law and The Redemptive Process

by | Jul 17, 2021 | Apologetics, Christian Thought, Justin Tarr, Spiritual Battles

The Law and The Redemptive Process

A brief overview of the book of Romans

General and special revelation have very strong differences that are easily distinguishable: revelation given by direct divine intervention is special revelation and general revelation is accessible to all by virtue of living in the world.

General revelation is available universally and was pursued by means such as Philosophy wherein geniuses like Plato and Aristotle were able to make great strides in the realm of theology by utilizing philosophy to develop arguments like the Argument from Contingency (Aristotle’s unmoved mover), the Teleological argument, and others.

They, however, fell short of knowing God quite like the Hebrew did to whom God made special effort to reveal himself: “despite Aristotle’s remarkable moral sensitivity in many ways, he still despised the idea of humility and the idea of being in anyone’s debt.” (McQuilken, & Copan, 2014, pg.72).

Another philosophical argument for God, the argument from morality, is used by the Apostle Paul when he makes this a major premise in the beginning of Romans to lay out his argument of the inexcusability of all the gentile world before God (Romans 1:18-32). He goes on to liken this general moral understanding of right and wrong (Romans 2:14-15), of which has been seared with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), to the Law of Moses in that he explains how the Jew is likewise doomed despite being divinely given the correct moral understanding of right and wrong by divine fiat (Romans 2:17-29).

Thus, both general revelation and special revelation are impotent for dealing with the great problem of evil and suffering faced by all mankind (Romans 3:9-20). 

This problem, of course, goes back to the very beginning wherein Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, giving them the ability to know both (Genesis 3:22) something which the Law of Moses serves an identical purpose: “law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless” (1 Timothy 1:9, ESV). That is why Paul spoke of the law as a curse to those who are under it in Galatians 3:10-14.

As Paul continues in Romans, he shows how God was fulfilling His prophecy of writing the law on our hearts through faith in Jesus Christ by referencing Abraham’s actionable faith in chapter 4, showing that it was the patriarch’s circumcised heart being lived out through faith that led to a circumcised flesh as a sign, proving circumcision of the flesh alone to be useless (Romans 4:9-16; Jeremiah 4:4; Deuteronomy 10:14-16; 30:6).

 

Abraham had, however, only general revelation to work from (Romans 4:10).

Paul argues from thus that it is faith in Christ that brings a total death to one’s own old moral framework of right and wrong, which he has shown in the earlier chapters to be inadequate and marred, via faith and baptism and (Romans 6:3-4).

This is because by being under grace, no longer have we any incentive to refuse repentance since the punishment that would discourage repentance (like admitting one was wrong, sinful, or wicked) has been entirely paid for. By this, the Law does not bind us (Romans 7:1-5) but rather just incites sin to war against us in the death throes of a soon-to-be-conquered kingdom (Romans 7:25; Matthew 16:17-19).

In a sense, this makes life much easier for the Gentile Christian who has never gotten the conscious correcting Law of Moses and thus has only to fight the battles against sin as they progressively learn more from the schoolmaster that is the law (Galatians 3:24; Acts 15:24-29), while Jewish converts have full knowledge of the law and thus have to combat sin in every part of life as soon as they are within Christ (Hebrews 2:19, Hebrews 1-12). 

Paul goes on to encourage believers that this life of internal war is worth the persisting battles that sin wages against us when we come to faith in Christ (Romans 8:18-25) because we have been made “…more than conquerors through him who loved us. (Romans 8:37, ESV).

In chapter 9…

…Paul shows that God’s not done with those who received God’s special revelation, arguing that it was because of their over-reliance on that very special revelation that they allowed themselves to stumble and that we Christians allow Israel to persist in existence by becoming the new child of promise that bears her birthright, replacing not Israel but rather those wicked generations that embody Esau.

Paul’s conclusion defeats the heresy of replacement theology in his quotation of Isaiah: Christians became the faithful remnant within apostate Israel, just like she was apostate back in Isaiah’s time, so that through the Christians Israel might be reconciled and saved (Romans 9:27-29).

Paul’s multiple quotations of the prophet Isaiah in Romans 10:18-21 shows how God going unto the Gentiles to punish Israel was specifically prophesied of and should come as no surprise. Thus, the Jewish rejection of Jesus is not evidence of the falsehood of Christianity but rather proof of it. 

In case it was not at this point already clear, Paul gives a useful illustration to explain how this process works: there is a breaking off of the branches of apostate Israel to graft on new wild branches of Gentile Christians; the tree is still the same tree meaning Israel never got replaced but rather only some of her branches. Moreover, there are even today Jewish-Christian believers.

Paul concludes that once this process is complete, then Israel will finally desire her king (Romans 11:25).

Paul spends the final 2 chapters of Romans describing how Christians rest in a sort of general-special revelation wherein the Holy Spirit renews our minds and empowers us with various gifts by which we can fulfill the law through love (Romans 12:10).

General, because it is universal to Christians; special, because He indwells only those whom He set apart.

Olive Tree in the Holy Land

To summarize…

…Humanity had a general-special revelation in the beginning but forsook it for a false, or anti-revelation that marred our ability to live by faith and caused us to live by a mental framework of what is right and wrong cursed to maintain it perpetually as it progressive degrades in our sinfulness.

Abraham was a unique man who lived by a similar kind of faith, via his general revelation, as from the beginning and so God decided that because of his faithful lifestyle He would save the world through him. From there, God gave mankind the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil again, intellectually repairing that lost knowledge of good and evil through special revelation. Then, through His son Jesus Christ, God repaired that spiritual loss of knowledge of good and evil so that we may live by faith one again and grant us a general-special revelation through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

With renewed minds and renewed spirits, one day soon the Lord Jesus will return to renew our flesh in the resurrection at the end of days so that we may once again live as we did in Eden.

References:

McQuilken, R; & Copan, P. (2014). Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the way of wisdom. Intervarsity Press.

 

Go here for more articles Two Measures Foolish Blogs

 

The Law and The Redemptive Process 

Follow Us On Facebook

Two Measures Foolish: Foolish to God for we sin – Foolish to the world for the cross.

Morals Without God?

Morals Without God?

by | Oct 16, 2019 | Apologetics, Atheism, John Tarr

Morals Without God?

It depends on what you mean by morals. The word moral, morals or morality seems to be straight forward, but it is actually deceiving and in need of further research.

Cambridge Dictionary defines moral as a noun: relating to standards of good or bad behavior, fairness, honesty, etc. that each person believes in rather than laws.

Wikipedia defines morality: “manner, character, proper behavior” is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and action between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

Who says so?

Interesting that both Cambridge and Wikipedia are similar in their definitions, but the problem is they are both silent and do not point to who or what entity says what is considered good or bad, proper behavior, fairness or honesty. 

What is the moral agent that defines this?

If you cannot point to something outside the natural man, you are doing nothing more than performing mental gymnastics by trying to make your opinion fit a narrative that you are trying to promote.

Morals Without God?

Morals Without God?

 

Furthermore, colleges have been debating if they should even be teaching ethics in law and business schools anymore. The topic has been considered divisive because so many people have different views on morality and what it is.

A panel of Stanford scholars addressed this issue in an event titled “Does Teaching Ethics do any Good?” Approaching the topic from diverse academic backgrounds, the Stanford professors who participated in the discussion, agreed that ethics classes cannot be expected to make students more ethical.

Why is that?

Our higher education schools have become deeply secular. No mention of God, Intelligent Designer or Moral Agent is allowed.

These schools and teachers struggle to point to something outside of human opinions. People have objections all over the map and see right through a false argument of what is right and wrong. They have to stay away from religion at all costs. Only secular thought can be used so they drop the issue altogether.

I also believe that is why people like about sports so much. It not only makes clear that there is a winner and loser, but they have clearly defined rules by a “Rule Giver”. There are rules that have to be followed that a play or technique is right or wrong to use. An objective rule giver has decided this beforehand.

Without God you cannot have objective morality.

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal. So how could something like morals be universal if there is no universal law giver?

The fact is, you really cannot have any morals at all but glorified individual opinions and billions of them at that. If you say it’s wrong to kill people or to steal or abuse them, then you are stealing from Judeo-Christian ethics that the cultures have adopted as there own the last three or four thousand years.

When Moses came down the mountain with the Ten Commandments the Jews themselves were somewhat in the dark about what was right and wrong. It clarified beyond a shadow of doubt in large print, what a transcendent being considered moral or ethical from His stand point. Thus, mankind had objective morality written in stone for the first time outside the viewpoint and opinions of humans.

Morals Without God?

Morals Without God?

 

The natural man cannot have these inclinations. Where would they come from? Evolution? Survival of the fittest?

Evolution has no such concept of morality or morals. There is no such thing as good or bad. Killing something or dominating the weak is a good thing because it promotes survival only, it’s not considered good but just “is”. “Is” is neutral. Killing is a “is” behavior neither good nor bad. Evolution has no opinion, no judgment, only that you are alive at all costs no matter what it took to get there.

Through out history when ever objective morality has been abandoned for human morals (opinions) devastating consequences have followed. During the Second World War the Nazi’s tried to impose their view of morality. Killing off the Jews and many other people deemed undesirable was considered a “good thing”.

The German scientist had already embraced Darwinian Evolution before Hitler came to power, so it was an easy transition for them to believe they had a mandate to cleans their German culture of this Jewish virus that Hitler promoted. They had a saying that was popular within its leadership. “What Darwin did not complete the Third Reich will finish”.

Think about that justification for a moment.

Scary stuff when humans are in control of what it means to be right or wrong. The goal post can move or shift at any moment or change of agenda.  

The Egyptian and Roman empires did not believe in Darwin per say because they were in power long before Charles Darwin came up with his Theory of Evolution in 1850’s but, the mind set was the same. They ruled with impunity because they thought they had a right to dominate and kill when it was convenient to their cause.

They were the rule givers.

We also see that in today’s world wherever atheistic governments are in control. There is no moral standard but their own. They have become god over their people. Staying in power at all costs no mater the consequences to humans under their control.

Dr. William Lane Craig, a Christian Apologetics or Christian Philosopher, has an interesting but effective take on the “Objective Morality Argument” in three parts.

  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
  1. Objective moral values do exist.
  1. Therefore, God exists

Dr. Craig has a great discussion with someone who is an atheist on this Three-Part Moral Argument if you would like to read it in its totality.

What I find fascinating is how he finishes the article in his last two paragraphs:

“Let me say in passing that since God is the highest Good, we have a moral obligation to love and worship Him, and He would be evil if He did not care whether people fulfill their moral obligations or not.

Perhaps the difficulty here is that you seem to think of God simply as a creator, and you are quite right in saying that being a creator does not equate to moral authority. But the theistic concept of God is much richer than the notion of a creator and designer of the universe. He is also what Plato called the Good, the paradigm and locus of moral value. As such, He is ideally suited to serve as the foundation of objective moral values and duties.”

God is good.

He is the total embodiment of good. There is no part of Him that is not good and if we are a reflection of Him, as Christians, we are to reflect this good.

He is our very foundation and where objective morality comes from outside of the human man to a source before the beginning and creation of this universe.

 

Go here for many more Interesting Articles on our Blog

 

Morals Without God?

Follow Us On Facebook