Hi Bible2. Principally I challenged you to answer DIRECTLY one major question - head-on without circumventing its force - and, as expected, you dodged the force of it.
"Again, if you had a kid, and told him to clean his room every day of the week (7 days), but he FELT CERTAIN you meant every week day (5 days), you can't punish him (unless you're unjust) because he's acting in good conscience (heeding felt certainty). Would you give that kid a sound beating?"
Yep. Like everyone else, you are unwilling to answer this question because doing so discredits almost 2,000 years of faulty epistemology rampant in the church. Your pretend-response:
Thank God that He doesn't abandon us to our own, faulty conscience (Proverbs 28:26).
That's the whole point. None of us are omniscient. All of us, except in cases of prophetic revelation, are susceptible to errors in attempting to ascertain God's will from the Bible. Therefore God would be displeased with us continually if He had to evaluate us based on 100% correct exegesis (in fact most people didn't even have Bibles throughout history). So He must, if He is just, evaluate us based on our adherence to conscience - yes, even a FAULTY conscience.
Note that Abraham lived some 500 years before the 10 commandments were given.
Fundamental moral principles don't have start dates and expiration dates, my friend.
Also, the fact that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering (Genesis 22:2) shows it was possible for God way back in ancient times to accept human sacrifice, just as God would later accept the human sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ on the Cross (John 3:16, Isaiah 53). But nothing says Isaac was a willing sacrifice (Genesis 22:7). For Abraham may have had to bind Isaac to keep him on the altar (Genesis 22:9). And God's subsequently-retracted command to sacrifice Isaac had only been a test of Abraham's obedience to God (Genesis 22:12).
Again, basic morality isn't dated. Furthermore the voluntary self-sacrifice of an ADULT (Christ) isn't a warrant or a precedent for an ordinary man beating up his own kids to death, even if they are sufficiently docile to permit it. And it's hardly justification for Moses and Joshua to slaughter seven nations (including their children) - such conquering of Kingdoms was also described as a righteous act in Hebrews 11. Again, the only way to make sense of Abraham's sacrifice (and the Mosaic genocides) is to assume that the divine Voice gave their conscience feelings of certainty - in this case 100% certainty since only an evil man or a psychopath would initiate such violent behavior at less than 100% certainty.
After all, let's assume Abraham had some rationale other than the Voice. It would have to be very compelling to justify the behavior, right? Essentially it would have to ethically DEMAND of him such behavior. Ok but if it were so compelling, then why not follow through? Why did he stop at the last instant? The reason is obvious: The Voice commanded him to stop. Thus the same Voice that gave him a feeling of certainty to initiate the act was now giving him a feeling of certainty to desist. Sorry, but, like it or not, those are the facts.
Also way back in ancient times, God could have allowed Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering (Judges 11:31-40) because she was a willing sacrifice (Judges 11:36), just as God allowed the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ on the Cross (John 3:16) because Jesus was a willing sacrifice (John 10:11,17-18, John 15:13). Note also what 2 Kings 3:27 says.
Again, morality is not dated, and two wrongs don't make a right. Jephthah needed 100% certainty if he was a good man. Since the faith of Hebrews 11 is 100% certainty, it mentions BOTH Abraham AND Jephthah. Otherwise you can't justify beating up your kids to death - not even in ancient times. In John 8, Jesus spoke favorably of Abraham, contrasting him with evil violent men. A man who tries to burn his own kids to death, without 100% certainty, is not a kind man - in ANY generation. In point of fact God condemned nations that sacrificed their children to deities - and trust me, it wasn't merely on account of false deities.
But now, in these days, no one should ever think God would accept them sacrificing their child as a burnt offering, even if their child was a willing sacrifice. For Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross has put an end to all such sacrifices for all time (Hebrews 10:5-18). So now, in these days, after the sacrifice of Jesus, if any people think God is commanding them to sacrifice their child as a burnt offering, it's not God commanding them to do that, but their own insanity, or the devil, who loves to deceive people with lies into committing murder (John 8:44).
As already stated, we still need God to give us 100% certainty (prophetic revelation) on questions such as whether we should drop a bomb on Hiroshima. (God is evil if He has no desire to help us decide such matters). So I categorically reject your assumption that God's way of dealing with men has changed. Yahweh is the same today, yesterday, and forever.
And by the way, your assumption that Abraham had a different morality in virtue of living pre-Mosaic-law is false, because Galatians 3:15-17 says that the law never altered the terms of the Abrahamic covenant. Multi-covenant theology is a superficial reading of Scripture. Any 'new' covenant was just a further deployment and/or rearticulation of the existing Abrahamic covenant.
Regarding Saul and the Amalekites, note that it was the breaking of the principle of Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (compare Exodus 17:14) which was the downfall of Saul (1 Samuel 15:2-23).
The downfall of Saul, as recorded in 1Sam 15, was disobedience to the Voice - which is precisely the dynamic I've been alleging from the getgo. When the Voice gives you a feeling of certainty about God's will, it is BINDING (obligatory).
For under the Old Covenant, murder was forbidden (Deuteronomy 5:17), while killing in a war commanded by God was required (1 Samuel 15:3).
Commanded by God? You're not making any sense. On what basis does a man have the right to conclude that God has commanded him to commit genocide, if not by virtue of a Voice inciting 100% certainty?
Admittedly the human conscience will condone violence when self-defense absolutely demands it, but only an evil man initiates genocide without 100% certainty.
But under the New Covenant, which Christians are under (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31), Christians are commanded never to harm anyone, even in self-defense (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52). They're to be as harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16c). For Christians are commanded to love even their enemies (Matthew 5:44), and this means they must do them no harm (Romans 13:10a, Matthew 7:12).
Nope. False dichotomy. See John 8 where Abraham was prized for adhering to the same kindness prized today. Yahweh has't changed, my friend.
As the Protestant Reformers held, there is only one Covenant of Grace spanning both testaments (Gal 3). You're not under a different covenant than OT saints, my friend.
God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8).
This is the basis/authority for your accceptance of Scripture? Yep. I totallly agree. The Inward Witness, said Calvin, is a feeling of certainy initiating and SUSTAINING saving faith, including:
(1) Your belief that Jesus is God
(2) Your belief that the Bible is inspired
Thanks for acknowledging that feelings of certainty are AUTHORITATIVE (morally obligatory).
It's the meek who will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5, Psalms 37:11).
Christians don't employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18). Instead, Jesus Christ at His 1st coming set the example for what Christians are to do when they're physically attacked by people (1 Peter 2:19-23). They're to go meekly like sheep to the slaughter (Romans 8:36), just like Jesus did (Isaiah 53:7). Obedient Christians don't fear death (Hebrews 2:15) and don't love their lives unto death (Revelation 12:11b), but hate their lives in this world, so they might retain eternal life (John 12:25, Mark 8:34-38). For obedient Christians know being killed is no loss for them, but gain (Philippians 1:21), as it brings their still-conscious souls into heaven to be with Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:8), which is far better than remaining in this fallen world (Philippians 1:23).
see above.
During the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, Christians (not in hiding) will have to face martyrdom with patience and faith to the end (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), just as Christians have always had to spiritually overcome in the face of martyrdom (e.g. Revelation 2:10-11).
Um...The same martyrdom was already an OT ethic per Hebrews 11. Yahweh hasn't changed a bit. Or didn't you know that Israel murdered her prophets? Note that God didn't condone such murders just because it was OT times.
Instead, the ability of Christians (although not their choosing) to repent from and confess to God every sin they commit is assured. For if they do commit a sin, even if they're unaware of it, Jesus Christ will send them warning and chastening to make sure they know they've sinned and need to repent (Revelation 3:19, Hebrews 12:6-7, cf. Jeremiah 31:18-19). And He will give them time to repent (Revelation 2:21a). It's only if they wrongly employ their free will to waste the time they're given, and ignore the warning and chastening, and refuse to repent (Revelation 2:21-23, cf. Deuteronomy 21:18-21) until death (1 John 5:16b) or Jesus' future, Second Coming (Luke 12:45-46), that they will ultimately lose their salvation due to unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Galatians 5:19-21).
If Christians become unsure whether or not they've ignored Jesus' warning, and refused to repent from a sin, they need to pray and ask Him to reveal to them if there's any unrepentant sin in their heart (Psalms 139:23-24). And they need to be reading the Bible, every word of it (Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16), over and over again. For it will expose to them any unrepentant sin which still exists in their heart (Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:16), so they can repent from it and confess it to God, and be forgiven and perfect before God (2 Timothy 3:17; 1 John 1:9; 2 Corinthians 7:1).
All this talk about sin is irrelevant to the debate until we properly define sin. You showed your unwillingness to do that when you refused to answer the question I gave you about the boy tasked with cleaning his room 7 days a week.
Note that the Bible was simply handwritten before the printing press was invented. That's how God's people had the Bible for some 3,000 years before Gutenberg.
The NT wasn't even canonized until around 250 A.D. And it wasn't until "the late Middle Ages, [that] the production of both religious and secular texts passed to professional copyists. Booksellers placed shops near the universities and to cathedral schools, and so the book trade mushroomed. Of course, most people in the Middle Ages were illiterate, and so picture Bibles full of wonderful illustrations became popular."
How was the Bible distributed before the printing press was invented in 1455?
Unfortunately in that period the Catholic church put a ban on public distribution of the Bible because they believed that only priests were sufficiently educated to perform biblical exegesis. The Reformers changed all all that, but not until 1500 A.D. Until then, 99% of Christians did not have a personal copy of either the OT or the NT. But I already intimated such in earlier posts.
Do not in any way discount the potency of God's Word the Bible. For it is the very sword of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 6:17). Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Note that here the Bible serves as a discerner of our conscience, and so it is superior to it (Jeremiah 17:9).
A common Protestant misconception. You're confusing the written Word with the divine Word. Imagine a group of students running out of a classroom screaming "It's a bomb" when the professor brandishes a history book on World War II. This is silly because the book is only a DESCRIPTION of the bombs, the book is not the explosive power itself. In the same way, the written Word, by virtue of inspiration, is merely an ACCURATE DESCRIPTION of God's power, not the actual power itself (the divine Word).