If you’ve been watching the headlines over the last couple years, you may have noticed the incredible surge of interest in fighting slavery around the globe.

How should you respond to the success of the anti-slavery movement?
God’s acceptance and endorsement of slavery is abundantly clear — He allows slavery in every age.

- In the Patriarchs (Genesis 9:26; 16:16; 17:12-13; 20:17)

- In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 25:44-46)

- In the Old Testament Historical Books (Joshua 9:23)

- In Wisdom Literature (Proverbs 11:29; 12:24)

- In the Prophets (Jeremiah 15:14; 17:4)

- In the New Testament Epistles of Paul and Peter (I Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9; I Peter 2:18)

- In New Testament Historical Book (Acts 2:18)

- And from the Mouth of the Lord Himself in all four Gospels! (Matthew 24:45-46; 25:14, 23, 26; Mark 12:2; Luke 2:29; 7:2, 8; 12: 37-38, 47; 17:10; 19:22; John 13:16)

Why, then, have anti-slavery interpretations of Scripture been so successful at persuading so many? Simple: people want to be convinced. Since the Bible is so clear about the issue, sinners have had to defy reason and embrace error to quiet their accusing consciences. As Jesus said, “Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, [because] their deeds were evil” (John 3:19-20).

What should be your response to the anti-slavery agenda? Make it a biblical response—confront it with the truth of Scripture that accepts and endorses slavery and all who practice it.

Don’t allow yourself to be intimidated by anti-slavery critics and their futile reasoning—their arguments are without substance.

To claim anything else is to compromise the truth of God.

I think you are all saying the same things with different words. It sounds to me like you both agree, yet think you disagree because of the wording being used. I don’t believe that Jun means that Christ was a rebel in the sense that He was rebellious. However, He was a rebel in the sense that He challenged the authority of the Pharisees. I think what Jun means is that Christ was notably different and non-compliant, and I think you would agree.

Jun - what is God’s love that you purport to share?

“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8

God’s love made my salvation possible. But, in order to benefit from that love, I must repent of my sin and turn from it. How do I know this is true? Because God said so. How judgmental and tactless of God to be this way - to only offer salvation to those who repent of their sins and turn from them.

The love of God is made visible in the gift of salvation. In order to receive this gift, this love, one must repent and turn from their sin. How can you truely be sharing the love of God with anyone if you don’t also include this need to repent and turn from sin in your presentation?

Remember that God’s love does not benefit everyone. It only benefits those who obey Him. You are not truely sharing God’s love if you tell people otherwise.
—–

For Ben Smith: People have many different kinds of strong urges (from gluttony to addictions to sexual preference). It may be true that there are valid reasons why these urges exist. But it is equally true that God simply says: “don’t give in to these urges; to give in to these urges is sin”. I think preachers are off-base when they insist that these urges have no basis is a person’s biology or psychology, that they are nothing more than “sin”. I think laypeople are equally off-base when they insist that, because the urges have a valid biological or psychological basis, we must give in to them. The urges may have valid biological and/or psychological reasons for existing, but God says simply “don’t give in to them”. Ultimately, that is what matters. I don’t know why God set things up that way, and I know this tension causes a great deal of grief, but God does allow us all to have valid urges that He expects us to not give in to.

Impossible, yes. That is why Christ’s sacrifice was necessary. But, again, Jesus never remade ANY sin into a non-sin. You either accept that sin is sin is sin, or you place your own desire to be acceptable to society above what God has CLEARLY revealed.

I would like to suggest that your understanding of God’s holiness seems to be incomplete. God’s holiness and His love are evident throughout the entire NT and the entire OT. If God is not holy, Jesus death would be unnecessary. It is exactly b/c of what you call God’s “hatred” that Jesus came and died for our sins.

And by the way, I am a very tactful and non-judgmental person. I know and love many sinners, some of whom are homosexual. I even have a homosexual person in my extended family. I love and pray for that relative as I love and pray for the rest of my non-Christian family. But sin is still sin. And God calls homosexuality a sin.

“I don’t know how it happened, but a few decades ago someone branded homosexuals with the worst misnomer—“gay.” Gay used to mean happy, but I can assure you, homosexuals are not happy people.”
I’ve met depressed and mentally ill homosexuals and I’ve met depressed and mentally ill Christians. I’ve also met many happy people in my life, Christian, non-Christian, heterosexual and homosexual. This proves nothing.

The church - we Christians - need to really understand the issues surrounding homosexuality if we are to win the debate in society over homosexuality in society.
As a young Christian with several gay friends, living in a society much more tolerant of homosexuality than the US, I find the current answers the church is giving for homosexuals to be lacking in appeal and I would find it extremely hard to explain to my friends why homosexual sex is wrong, and why God calls them to a non-sexual or heterosexual lifestyle when they’ve obviously grown up homosexual, with little apparent ability to change. I hope I haven’t got off topic here - I’m just trying to explain my motives for needing to bring up the points above.

God’s love is the same in the OT and NT. But God’s hatred is also not manifest in NT. The Romans were probably not any less pagan than the Philistines and the Amalekites and the other “ites” and probably committed equal offense against God and the Jewish people but nowhere in the NT will you read God’s command to annihilate the Romans. This is the difference that I’m talking about. There are parts in the gospels where Jesus said: “Its been said of old…but verily I say unto you…” And they are not trivial matters to which those “verily I say unto you” phrase refers. They’re about important social relationships and attitudes: marriage, divorce, adultery, murder, revenge, humility, forbearance, generosity and even love for enemies, among others. Its like Jesus was saying: “OK, here’s the old law, and here’s the new law. The old law is not good anymore, and that’s another new law.” If Jesus were a strict constructionist, he would have been like the Pharisees. And if the Pharisees brought to Jesus’ attention the issue of homosexuality, its likely the world, and Christians too, would have an entirely different view of homosexuality.

As I wrote in my original post, I’m not a gay person neither do I advocate gay rights. But I suspend a definitive judgment about morality on the matter. My stand now is one of respect: I respect honest, sincere, caring, decent and loving relationship between couples, heterosexual or homosexual. I respect the decision of the court allowing gay marriage. I think honest, sincere, caring, decent, and loving relationship between two consenting adults should be legitimized and protected.

Sharing God’s love necessarily implicates His holiness. I think its impossible to share God’s love without the spirit of God’s holiness. I think its wrong to purport to share God’s love to the homosexual when you are judgmental and tactless. That’s the real affront both to God and to the homosexual.

Jesus did not seek transformation with the force of whatever it is you mean by “Love” with a capital “L.” Jesus sought perfect adherence to the law so that He could offer Himself as a holy, living sacrifice to atone for the sins of His bride, the church. The ultimate act of love, certainly, but about so much more than love, His sacrifice was also about God’s holiness and the cost that must be paid in order for the church to be reconciled with God. Jesus sought transformation through atonement. God’s love existed throughout the OT, it did not suddenly appear in the NT. It was not a new thing.

You diminish God’s love if you fail to recognize God’s holiness. You can’t take one and leave the other, they work hand in hand. And asking Christians to redefine what God has called sin is an affront to the holiness of God and is therefore also an affront to the love of God.

God’s Word plainly tells us that homosexuality is a sin.

Jesus death paid for the debt of our sins. But Jesus did NOT recreate homosexuality, or any other sin, as a non-sin.

Let me address the particular concerns that you raised. I believe you have issue, among others, with my use of the words “anti-institutional” and “radical personality” in referring to Jesus Christ. I will define the terms and expound a little bit.

When I said He was “anti-institutional” I meant Jesus opposed Pharisees in many of their practices and traditions that they deemed important, in their hypocrisy and self-righteousness, and in their obsessiveness with strict adherence to rules and formalities. My emphasis was on how the Pharisaical system manifested itself on the people.

By “radical” I meant fundamental, thorough, and far reaching. Jesus shook the foundations of the Jewish religious beliefs. He sought the comprehensive and thorough transformation of peoples’ lives. Jesus and His words’ transformed hearts of men, kingdoms, nations and peoples. The influence of Jesus and His words are so far reaching. Its in these senses that I used the word “radical” when referring to Jesus.

To me, the word “rebel” does not necessarily entail a negative connotation. But I did not say that Jesus Christ was a rebel. Jesus Christ was more than a rebel. (Even the first rate revolutionaries and legendary warriors of different historical epoch combined are no match to Jesus Christ in terms of influence upon the world.) He was more radical than the rebels of His day. While they seek to overthrow Roman rule and oppression, Jesus sought to overthrow sin from the hearts men and free men from the bondage and oppression of sin. While they sought change with the force of arms, Jesus sought transformation with the force of Love. Jesus’ weapon is so radical, so unique, so effective it could only come from God.

I’m sure you did not mean to say that Jesus is narrow-minded or that those who walk through the narrow path are narrow minded. To me, Jesus is the most enlightened, most broad-minded person that ever walked on earth. He saw through the minds of men, he knew their hearts, He empathized with them and loved them so much. The most broad-minded people I know are Christians. They know how the world works, the lures, the temptations. But they still chose to walk in the narrow path. If they are narrow-minded, they would have opted for the broad way and forsook their Savior. (Of course its not really their broadmindedness that keeps them in the narrow path, its the faithfulness of their Savior.) But Christians should never be openminded when it comes to sin.

I hope I was able to address your concerns.

Jun

I was wondering if you would be willing to write a little about how one addresses the issue of homosexual “marriage” as it arises in our state (Ca). Obviously it is sinful and we should approach it with the understanding that we were all saved by grace while still dead in our sin, but I have been wrestling with a few questions that I would love to see addressed:

Should we speak out against it or would that be counter productive to the cause of furthering the Gospel in the homosexual community? Is it enough to simply vote on it or do we have an obligation to address it in a more public manner?

I am inclined to think that the statement you made at T4G about the outcome of the election holds true in this instance, that this issue (homosexual marriage) has absolutely no effect on the Kingdom of God or how we are called to live in this world. Then again, I may just be wrong.

Thanks for your time and your continuing ministry.

Jesus Christ was not a rebel. He was and is the Son of God.

He was not anti-intitutional. He is the head of an institution, His Bride called the church.

He was not a “radical personality”. He was and is God in the flesh.

The reason he lashed out at the Pharisees is because they were hyporcrites. Yes He dumped their traditions, but why, because He was a trouble-maker? No, because they were legalistic and led people to Hell.

He was not free from all narrow-mindedness. The contrary, He describes the way as narrow which leads to Him, Matthew 7: 14.

I wished I had more time to comment on Jun’s post. Please forgive any typos. Jun, my purpose here is not to pick on you, but to encourage you to examine the scriptures and see what they say about Jesus Christ. I would also recommend John MacArthur’s book “Hard To Believe”.

Grace and peace. Dustin Price