Critiquing: No Rules for Christians Other Than to Love God and Love Others?

June 29, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Christian Law Debate — Rules and Love — Moral Imperatives — Fulfilled Prophecies — Biblical Guidance

---

Introduction

The content explores the concept of whether Christians have any rules to follow other than loving God and loving others, a claim rooted in Jesus’ fulfillment of the law. The discussion is framed around a question about antinomianism and the role of the law in a Christian’s life. The speaker, Amy Hall, along with Greg Koukl, addresses this and related topics.

Overview of Arguments

The primary argument is that while Jesus’ fulfillment of the law implies Christians are not bound by the Old Testament laws, they are still guided by moral imperatives found in the New Testament. The content is divided into two main parts: the nature of Christian rules post-fulfillment of the law and the details of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.

Analysis of Logical Coherence

Misunderstanding Antinomianism

The content begins by addressing the claim that Jesus’ fulfillment of the law means Christians have no rules to follow other than to love God and others. This is labeled as antinomianism. The speaker asserts:

“The New Testament, which talks about Jesus fulfilling the law, is thick with moral imperatives that we are to live by.”

This statement sets up a premise that the New Testament provides clear guidelines that contradict antinomianism. However, there is a lack of explanation or evidence about how these “moral imperatives” are distinct from the original law, which raises questions about the coherence of the argument.

Inconsistency in Interpretation

The content oscillates between stating that Christians are not under the law and that the law is still a guide. For example:

“We are to be holy as God is holy and without holiness, no one will see God.”

Contradicted by:

“We don’t have to hide laws or get rid of laws to make ourselves better. We can uphold all of that, the goodness of it, even if we’re not under it in terms of it ruling over us and judging us.”

The argument here is inconsistent because it fails to clearly delineate how Christians can both uphold the law and not be judged by it. This ambiguity leads to logical incoherence.

Cognitive Biases

The content reflects a confirmation bias by primarily using interpretations of scriptures that support the pre-existing belief that moral imperatives still bind Christians. The speaker mentions reading selective passages to reinforce their viewpoint without considering counter-arguments or alternative interpretations.

Logical Fallacies

Several logical fallacies can be identified in the content:

• Appeal to Authority: Frequent references to Paul and other apostles without critically engaging with their writings.
• Straw Man: Simplifying the antinomian position to easily refute it without addressing the nuanced arguments of those who hold this view.
• Circular Reasoning: Using the New Testament to prove the validity of New Testament imperatives without independent justification.

Unsubstantiated Claims

Several claims in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

• “The law characterizes things that are good.”
• “We don’t have to hide laws or get rid of laws to make ourselves better.”

These statements require evidence and a clear definition of what constitutes “good” and how adherence or non-adherence to the law impacts moral behavior.

Testing Alleged Promises

To evaluate the promises made in the content, such as the transformative power of following Christian moral imperatives, empirical methods could be suggested:

1. Behavioral Studies: Conducting studies on the behavior of individuals who adhere strictly to these moral imperatives versus those who do not.
2. Psychological Impact: Assessing the psychological and social well-being of individuals within different Christian communities.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

A crucial aspect of logical coherence is mapping the degree of belief to the degree of available evidence. The content heavily relies on scriptural interpretation without empirical evidence to support its claims. For instance:

“Good deeds are not profitable for justification. Our deeds don’t acquit us; they condemn us.”

This assertion about the nature of deeds lacks empirical backing and hinges solely on doctrinal interpretation.

Conclusion

The content provides a detailed exploration of Christian moral imperatives post-Jesus’ fulfillment of the law. However, it suffers from logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and a lack of empirical evidence to substantiate its claims. The arguments presented would benefit from a more rigorous examination of the underlying assumptions and a balanced consideration of alternative viewpoints.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section. Your perspectives and additional insights are highly valued.