On a Yahoo! discussion list for debate between atheists and theists (which you can find here), the topic came up of God’s commanding Israel to commit genocide and even to kill the women and children of particular people groups. How can a loving, moral God command such atrocities? And guess who took up the task of defending the morality of God’s actions? Like they say, there’s a sucker born every moment. Besides, what good is it being seminary trained if you can’t even provide a reasonable answer to a skeptic’s question? So, I gave it a shot.
Of course, I found it amusing – and I told them so – that atheists who believe that morality is relative and there is no absolute, universal moral standard of conduct, would charge God – or anyone, for that matter – with being immoral. Its funny how atheists will take the moral high ground when they’re attacking God. Suddenly, “everyone knows”, or at least every “normal person knows,” that genocide and dashing babies against rocks is wrong. But, I have asked time and again: what is “wrong” and what is a “normal” person given chance, change over time, and a closed universe? The rest of the argument along these lines, which I set forth, also come up in this book by Tim Keller and this video of a debate between Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens.
But beyond that, here is an example of where knowing the full scope of biblical revelation as the unfolding of God’s plan of redemption in history becomes so helpful. The assumption of the atheist or skeptic is that babies are innocent and as such do not deserve death. Even us Reformed folk have a hard time thinking otherwise! After all, the death of a baby can be one of the most tragic things that a family can experience. The mere idea of a baby dying, no less being dashed against rocks, hits us at the heart. However, the Bible is very clear, there was only one baby born innocent in all of history. Everyone is not only born in sin, but conceived in sin, having the the sin, guilt, and corruption of Adam imputed to them. That means even babies are sinful and under the curse of God deserving his full wrath and anger. If it were otherwise, then babies wouldn’t die. But they do die, therefore they must have the sin of another imputed to them.
Given this, we know then that God has no obligations to allow anyone to live. We all deserve his wrath and the curse of our sin, which is death. Therefore, it ought not to surprise us that God would order the death of an entire people group. He is simply carrying out the sentence which sinners deserve, but which has been delayed since the fall. There is nothing immoral about God’s acts of genocide. It is he carrying out his justice. It serves as a foreshadow of the eternal wrath of God coming to all who are found outside his gracious covenant.
But now, inevitably, the point comes up: so that means that religious people have a precedent for today carrying out acts of genocide. In fact, atheists argue, just about any time we see genocide committee today its in the name of religion. Of course, historically, that’s not completely true. After all, atheistic Russia was able to commit genocide with the best of ‘em. But it is true, much blood has been shed in history in the name of religion.
However, that can’t be blamed on the Bible. And once again, a redemptive-historical hermeneutic is of help to us. When did God order Israel to do the things they did? He did so in the Old dispensation. He did so in the time of revelation. He spoke directly to his people through the prophets commanding them to take up the sword and slaughter in his name. However, we no longer live in that dispensation, nor in the time of revelation. God does not reveal himself directly with new revelations today. All that is contained in God’s revelation for his church is already in the Bible. Therefore, if someone picks up a sword and says “God told be to slaughter all the Irishman in American,” you ought to be just a little suspicious of that someone. God just ain’t revealing new things like that today.
But what is more, we have the new and final revelation of the New Covenant. And there we are told explicitly that God’s Kingdom is not fought with carnal weapons of swords, armies, or – if you will – tanks, guns, and missals. Rather, our warfare is spiritual and it is fought with the proclamation of the Gospel and God’s offer to be reconciled to him and one another through Jesus Christ and by faith alone in him.
So, a robust Biblical Theology, far from offering us problems as Christians actually offers us solutions. Furthermore, no need to fear the skeptical attacks of atheists. What on the surface may seem to be a problem set up to take down our faith, is nothing more than self-defeating folly upon closer examination of the text of Scripture.
Yes, if we grasp Original Sin, then a lot falls in place. Really, the extension of all human life is a kind of stay of sentence.
Wow, Jim, you are such a liar. You did not answer any questions. And you certainly didn’t provide any reasonable answers to any questions. All you did was make assertions and then ignore evey question you were asked to answer. I can’t wait till we have our debate. Why don’t you post it on this blog when we are done so your audience here can judge your “defense of God” and how reasonable your answers are to my questions.
Or are you going to back out of the debate?
“Therefore, if someone picks up a sword and says “God told be to slaughter all the Irishman in American,†you ought to be just a little suspicious of that someone.”
Yes, especially if you happen to be Irish.