Video: Does New Creation Undermine Natural Law?

Today’s question: “What implications does the promise of new creation have for Christian ethics? Specifically does new creation undermine natural law ethics since we are now to orientate our lives, not towards what is revealed in nature, but towards the new creation established by God in Christ. What implications does this have for issues in which Christians often appeal to natural law arguments – marriage, sexuality, gender issues etc…?”

If you have any questions for me, please leave them on my Curious Cat account. If you have found these videos helpful, please tell your friends. If you would like to support my continued production of them, you can do so on my Patreon account. You can also get the audio of these videos on Soundcloud or iTunes.

About Alastair Roberts

Alastair Roberts (PhD, Durham University) writes in the areas of biblical theology and ethics, but frequently trespasses beyond these bounds. He participates in the weekly Mere Fidelity podcast, blogs at Alastair’s Adversaria, and tweets at @zugzwanged.
This entry was posted in 1 Corinthians, Audio, Bible, Creation, Eschatology, Ethics, NT, NT Theology, Podcasts, Questions and Answers, Revelation, Theological, Video. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Video: Does New Creation Undermine Natural Law?

  1. Geoff says:

    Many thanks. It is timely and follows well on from your Genesis 1 + 2 PDF. It needs to be widely disseminated, particularly in the CoE where there is much current contention.
    I’d like to post a link on Ian Paul’s blog but I’m not sure if it will be seen as “trespassing”, or promoting you, rather than what you say: but I see it as grist to the mill of scriptural, scholarly, biblical theology, integrity and hermeneutics. I may just post the link and see, if thats OK as it is pertinent to IP recent blog article and responses in the comments. I’ve already linked the PDF and that was accepted. If required, I seek retrospective permission from you.
    Once again, thanks. I do not know how it could be gainsaid by Christians, and it is simple, but not simplistic and understandable by non scholars. But if Peter’s dream can be construed to allow SSM and embrace queertheory and all its gender entailments, opposed it will be even by scholars.
    Will it be OK to post a link, if you have any inkling that it will be readily accepted, as I’m not sure whether it fits with IP’s approach to hermeneutics.

    • You are welcome to post the link. It is really up to Ian.

      • Geoff says:

        Tis done and has been posted twice – under two different , but related, topics. Hope itching ears are scratched, but in this day of febrile fractiousness some might look, listen elsewhere for salve, to hear what supports their immovalbe, predetermined view and “reading” of scripture on sexuality and gender rather than “through the spectacles of the testator” (a principle for the interpreation of wills and largely determined by the words used even though some words have a technical , not popular, commonplace meaning) in contrast to reading through their own eyes behind a secularly, sometimes unbelieving, distorted lens.
        Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.