He Called Christians Hypocrites, then THIS Happens

The Bible, Slavery, and Chattel Slavery

The last point, by the way, about the Israelites highlights the tribalism of the Bible since it's condoning slavery, but only when the slaves are taken from other nations. So not only are we dealing with the slavery of any people here, we're dealing with the enslavement of certain nations and races.

What was that the guy was saying a moment ago about biblical slavery not resembling that of the US? Okay, so it's perfectly permissible to mercilessly beat your slaves with a rod as much as you want, and this should only be punishable if the slave dies as a, quote, direct result.

If they get up after a few days, everything's fine. In what world should we consider this acceptable moral guidance?

Yes and no. The Bible calls some practices slavery that are not inherently sinful and regulates them. For example, indentured servitude, vassalage, and bride sale. But it does not condone chattel slavery, which is the kind of slavery atheists wrongly think the Bible condones.

Chattel slavery involves taking people against their will and being able to treat them brutally without any consequence. Three facts. Exodus 21 -16 prohibits stealing people, which is the very foundation of chattel slavery.

Cosmic skeptic and atheists like him are wrong about Leviticus 25. First, this whole chapter is about indentured servitude. Second, the difference between Hebrew slaves and foreign slaves wasn't that foreign slaves were chattel slaves, but rather that foreign slaves were simply not given the luxury of automatically being freed at the year of Jubilee.

Foreign slaves could remain servants for life if they never earned their freedom.

So I understand that people in this passage sold themselves into slavery and were not kidnapped against their will, nor was it commanded for them to stay for life. Instead, it was a permission.

Cosmic skeptic and atheists like him are wrong about Exodus 21. Four things. First, a master could not mercilessly beat a servant without consequence.

So it's perfectly permissible to mercilessly beat your slaves with a rod as much as you want.

If a master damaged a slave's eye or tooth, the slave would go free. This obviously was not true for chattel slavery. Second, physically disciplining a servant for disobedience or laziness isn't inherently wrong.

People who say it is are applying their own unjustified, arbitrary moral standard. Third, if a servant died immediately, the master was guilty of murder and would be punished. This obviously was not true for chattel slavery.

Fourth, if the servant did not die immediately, the master was given the benefit of the doubt that he didn't intend to kill the servant. This might offend our modern sensibilities, but there simply isn't anything inherently wrong here.

When the Israelites conquered other nations, they didn't divide the people up as chattel slaves. Second, Samuel 21 shows us that the Gibeonites had to give to and serve the Israelites in various ways, but remained as an intact nation under the Israelites.

The Christians in the South who used the Bible to justify chattel slavery were wrong. People who persist in arguing that the Bible condones sinful chattel slavery do so out of either ignorance or desperation.

Homosexuality, Shellfish, and the Old Testament Law

Jesus, doesn't the Bible say these people are an abomination? Abomination?

Yeah, but you know, it says the exact same thing about this shrimp cocktail. Shrimp cocktail? Bah, bah, bah, bah, bah, bah. Leviticus says shellfish is an abomination.

Homosexuality is in a completely different category than eating shellfish. There are three types of Old Testament laws, moral, ceremonial, and judicial.

I pick and choose because I understand that there are three different types of law. There's moral law, there's civil law, and there's ceremonial law.

Moral laws are eternal and universal. They are summarized by the Ten Commandments.

You see, I understand that the moral law, which is really based on the Decalogue, is that law that transcends time and culture, and that those are things that are true for all people in all places at all times.

The law prohibiting homosexuality is a moral law because it relates to marriage and sexuality, which relate to the Fifth and Seventh Commandments. Ceremonial laws were shadows of Christ that pointed towards his coming, and when Christ came, they were fulfilled and became obsolete.

Because I'm a Christian, I understand that Christ fulfilled those things in the ceremonial law, that he was our once-for-all sacrifice for sin.

They include the laws about sacrifices and cleanliness. Ephesians 2 tells us that Christ abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, in other words, ceremonial laws. The law prohibiting eating shellfish was a ceremonial law that is now obsolete.

It is unrelated to the Ten Commandments and was related to the ritual purity of the Israelites. There is simply absolutely no contradiction between believing that homosexuality is a sin and believing that eating shellfish is acceptable today.

Speaking in Tongues and Whether the Gift Continues Today

Under which the Canadian office is... The movement of the Spirit of God... I worship the Lord. Raise your hands to the Holy God and begin to pray in a language you've never been instructed. If you don't move your tongue and speak, no one else will do it.

The Bible describes speaking in tongues as speaking in a language that the speaker does not know. The words that are spoken can be interpreted or translated either by someone who knows the language or by someone who has the gift of interpreting tongues.

There is simply no other definition of tongues in the Bible. It seems pretty clear from this that these are not legitimate examples of speaking in tongues.

La, he, he, ha, ha. If you don't move your tongue and speak, no one else will do it.

This is just uninterpretable gibberish, not other languages. But could these be examples of tongues of angels, which 1 Corinthians 13, 1 mentions? Well, first, there are no examples of angels speaking in non-human languages.

And second, even if angels do speak in non-human languages, this language should still be able to be interpreted. But do some people speak in tongues today? I have heard two compelling positions. The first is that there are particular sign gifts, such as the miraculous gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing, whose purpose was to authenticate the message of the gospel while the canon of Scripture was being completed.

And now that the canon is completed, these sign gifts have ceased. Some passages used to support this position are 1 Corinthians 13, 8 -10 and Hebrews 1, 1 -2. Note that this position does not teach that God doesn't heal anymore today, just that no person today has the gift to heal on command.

The second is that we can't prove from Scripture that the gift of tongues has ceased. However, today, there are so few, if any, legitimate examples of speaking in tongues that, practically speaking, it seems like the gift has ceased.

You know, I see the arguments and stuff, but I can't say that I can say in my conscience that these things have ceased. But here's what I do do. I look at what tongues are in the Scriptures, and I don't see them anywhere today.

What I see in the Scriptures as being tongues, and I compare that to people who say they speak in tongues, I see something completely different.

God's Sovereign Plan, Satan's Rebellion, and the Purpose of the Cross

Acts 4, 27 -28 tells us that from the very beginning, it was always God's plan for Jesus to be crucified. This means that it was always God's plan to create Satan, for Satan to rebel, for Satan to deceive Eve, and for sin to enter into the world, so that Jesus could be crucified for the purpose of glorifying God through the salvation of hopeless sinners.

Communism is defined as a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned, and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Now let's take a look at some common passages used to say that the New Testament teaches communism. In Matthew 19, 20, Jesus says to the rich young man, If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess, and give to the poor.

But here, Jesus is merely identifying an idol in the rich young man's life, something he was unwilling to give up. Jesus here is not commanding all people to sell all their possessions and give them to the poor.

To argue this is to read too much into the text. Acts 4, 32 -35 is also often used to argue that the New Testament teaches communism. But verse 34 tells us that the people who owned land and houses sold these things voluntarily.

The land and houses were not publicly owned and distributed. In the next chapter, Peter says to Ananias, While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? In other words, Ananias owned his property, not the government.

It was not publicly owned. Ananias was not guilty because he refused to sell his property, but because he lied when he sold it. In direct opposition to what communism is, the New Testament in fact upholds the right to own private property.

Why Pray If God Already Knows Everything?

Three notes. The purpose of prayer is not to inform God about anything, since God is omniscient and knows everything already. God is certainly sovereign and has determined the end from the beginning, but he has chosen to accomplish his eternal will through means.

God uses prayer to accomplish his purposes in the same way that he uses the preaching of the gospel to save his elect people. So, it is valuable to pray because God has decided that he will hear and use our prayers in his eternal plan.

To say that prayer isn't valuable because God already knows everything is to not trust in God's wisdom in deciding to use prayer as part of his plan for the world. There are other reasons to pray besides asking God for things.

We also pray to praise and thank God, and to humble ourselves and acknowledge our dependence upon God. Doug Wilson urges people against getting a tattoo. Joel McDermott disagrees with Doug Wilson. I find McDermott's arguments to be more convincing.

The key verse is Leviticus 19 .28, which says, You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves. Three things to note here. The Hebrew word translated tattoo is an obscure word that doesn't appear anywhere else in the Bible, so we don't really know what it means exactly.

Translating it as tattoo is really just a guess. Leviticus 21 tells us that cutting the body is related to ceremonial uncleanness, and the context also includes practices such as making bald patches on heads, shaving the edges of beards, and touching dead bodies.

If it's still wrong to cut the body or get a tattoo, then is it still wrong to make a bald patch on our head, to shave the edges of beards, or to touch dead bodies? No, it's not. All of these are ceremonial laws that were fulfilled and became obsolete with the coming of Christ.

Wilson's other arguments are basically just good things to think about, not proofs that it's always wrong to get a tattoo. If you plan to get a tattoo, you should certainly consider things like how firm you are in your beliefs, your motivations, your parents, and the future.

But if you've thought through these things and believe you have a legitimate reason for getting a tattoo, then feel free to get one. Two reasons. God does not just save people in a vacuum. He saves people through means, through the hearing of the gospel, and through repentance and faith.

And people hear the gospel call through evangelism. We have the privilege and blessing of being used by God in his sovereign plan. God commands us to. The Great Commission in Matthew 28. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Even if we don't know the exact reason for why it's important to do this, we should be able to trust that since God is wise, whatever God has commanded is good for us to do. In Matthew 24 .37, Jesus refers to Noah as a real person, and the Noah narrative as a real historical event.

The Bible is clear that we should view the flood in the Noah narrative as a historical event that actually happened. If you do not believe this, then there are at least two serious concerns. First, your position would be in direct contradiction to Jesus' position concerning the Noah narrative.

And second, if you do not believe that the Noah narrative was historical, then I wonder what else in the Bible you do not consider historical that the Bible treats as historical. Not believing in the historicity of the Noah narrative and the flood is likely a sign of other serious issues too.

This answer also applies to babies who die in miscarriage or infancy. Let's consider four things. We know that God is wise, good, love, and just. We should be able to trust that whatever God has chosen to do, God does it with wisdom, goodness, love, and justice.

Some respected Bible teachers believe that all babies who die go to heaven.

Therefore, if we go to heaven, it's not because we have a right, it's because God is gracious. The best illustration I know of that is God sovereignly, graciously saving infants that die.

Could we agree that a better term regarding what happens to babies who die, we could joyfully announce they go to heaven because they haven't reached a level of accountability?

If this is true, that would be great. We should understand that because of original sin, which is sin that every person inherits from Adam, even babies are guilty of sin before God. So, babies would not be saved because they are innocent.

They would be saved because God applies Christ's atoning work to them. I think the most honest answer is that we simply can't be certain that all babies who die go to heaven. We can hope that they do, but the Bible just doesn't conclusively tell us.

This seems to be the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which refer to elect infants. It's also the position of Vodip.

Age of Accountability, Elect Infants, and Trusting God's Justice

All right, does the Bible support age of accountability? Do all babies go to heaven?

Does the Bible support age of accountability? No. No, there's nothing in the Bible that would even remotely support the idea of the age of accountability. Do all babies go to heaven? I don't know. The Bible didn't tell me that.

I don't know. I hope so, but I don't know. When the Bible speaks, I speak.

I was about to say, it sounds like a Luther statement there. That's good.

Whichever position you hold, you should acknowledge at least these two things. First, every human, including babies, is guilty of sin and can only be saved through the blood of Christ. And second, whatever God has chosen to do, he does so as the God of wisdom, goodness, love, and justice.