Post by Charles HedrickGod's command to Israel to kill certain populations is troubling.
why, especially when you correctly state
Post by Charles HedrickGod's people are a light to the Gentiles, and that they bear witness to
God through suffering.
What was the point and what was the outcome when it wasn't followed out
to completion? The point was to illustrate that a little leaven
leavens the whole lump. Sin must be totally eradicated. Bad company
corrupts good morals. And in that Israel did not completely comply
with the command to eradicate the land of ALL its pagan inhabitants, it
suffered the consequence by marrying its daughters and sons to those
idol worshipping pagans. That led to spiritual adultery. Satan is
always in pursuit of the next generation!
Post by Charles HedrickOne can deal with this even without invoking progressive revelation,
although it's not a perspective I accept. The orders to kill certain
* There is not a general command to kill all outsiders. Indeed the Law
is careful to preserve the rights of non-Israelites living in Israel. We
have to assume there was something specific about these groups that
caused God to give the order.
The whole point of the matter was contamination. Nehemiah 13
illustrates quite adequately the danger of compromise and its
unintended consequences. The road to ruin is thus:
1) toleration
2) permission
3) possibility of usefulness
4) acceptance
5) attraction
6) advocation
In Neh 13 we are shown one of the privileges granted to Israel, namely
the local presence of God dwelling in the temple. But 13:5 reveals
their defilement of this privilege while vv 10, 11 show their defeat
because they were distracted in v. 15, 16. V 15 reveals that business
was better than worship while v 16 reveals that worldliness replaces
godliness. The principle being that materialism always marginalizes
worship. In v 24 it is again noted that the result of intermarriage,
of tolerance then acceptance what that their grandchildren were
untaught in ways of God. Adultery in one generation leads to apostasy
in the next. V25 illustrates what the OT is meant to teach the Church.
That we are to think antithetically, not synthetically. But the
modern church has completely missed the point and now, like Israel,
stand arrogantly (Rom 11:18) and conceitedly (11:20) failing to
acknowledge both the kindness (election) and the severity (reprobation)
of God, standing at the precipice of being "cut off."
Therefore, for God to command the land to be swept clean, was a
prescience commission allowing for the fact that "a little leaven
leavens the whole dough."
Post by Charles Hedrick* The command was communicated by a prophet, someone acting as God's
mouthpiece. This is not a role that is currently active.
Indeed, now will it ever be in a foretelling role (Heb 1L1-2). It is,
however, active in the majority role of forthtelling.
Post by Charles HedrickJesus gave to
the Church the responsibility to act in his name. There are people who
play a prophetic role. But they aren't really equivalent to OT prophets.
And this is the reason for Jude's condemnation of the false teachers
who had crept into the assembly, spewing forth doctrines based upon
their dreams and visions. We have but one propositional truth and
that is the Scriptures. Sola scriptura is required because all men
have
been ruined by a "little leaven."
Post by Charles HedrickThey don't act entirely on their own, outside the Church. There are
things God could command through a prophet that we aren't authorized to do.
If I understand you correctly, I think you are saying that the gift of
prophecy, being narrowly defined as foretelling instead of the broader
definition and more common useage, foretelling, has ceased. And in
alignment with Heb 1:1-2. The kerygma is settled once and for all..
This is part of the message inferred in the Lazareth -Divers account.
The Scriptures are sufficent and nothing further need be added.
Creeds, counsels etc, all have their place in defining and
establishing "The Faith", but they are all subject to the propositional
truth granted to us in the Scriptures.
Post by Charles HedrickThe argument that you should kill all children so they go to heaven is
predicated on what I think are several errors.
First off, the scriptures do not so state that children are innocent
(as you later attest to) and thus are not in need of a pardon.
Scripture rather reveals that all men are born guilty of sin and that
all stand justly under the sentence of death and wrath. Although,
this being said, the scriptures teach that an infant born to the elect
has a better chance of gaining the truth than one born to an
unbelieving family. It may also infer that if an infant of the elect
dies, grace may be extend to that child on account of the believing
parent. But there are no scriptural teaching that children are likely
to go to heaven if they die before "the age of accountability" let
alone sure to. David cried prior to the death of the child because
there was still hope of salvation. However, after death, it was
entirely outside of his providence. "It is appointed unto man once to
die and then comes [certain] judgment."
Post by Charles HedrickIt assumes that humans start out as innocent. That isn't the Biblical
view. Even my own church has adopted the idea that young children are
all saved, but this is a rejection of our theological tradition.
That is because the PC/USA faction no longer stands upon sola's of the
Reformation, including sola scriptura, now does it?
Post by Charles HedrickSin is
not primarily a set of actions, but a state of alienation from God. The
traditional term is Original Sin, but that term is commonly
misunderstood. I don't know how God will judge young children,
The resolve of this dilemma lies in whether or not, as with sin, the
federalheadship paradigm applies. If it does, then the dying infants
of the elect are saved while those of the non-elect are lost. I don't
know, as you say. But there are arguments that this is the case.
Post by Charles Hedrickbut I
believe people of any age rely on his grace, and I have no reason to
think that dying young has any particular advantage. It saves you from
corrupting influence but it also prevents you from hearing the Gospel.
And that is the dilemma, is it not?
Post by Charles HedrickGod presumably put us here for a reason. Killing someone prevents them
from living the life that God would have had them live. Ultimately it is
a failure to trust that God loves them and cares for them.
When propositional affirmation of a truth is not revealed, it means
that
men are not to worry their pretty little heads about it. Just how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin is a waste of God granted time.
We are called to live by faith. We are called to live dependent lives
on
His goodness. Therefore, like David, we are to bathe our children
before
and after birth in prayer. But if they die, we are wait upon God.