Hi Corey,

I listened to the sermon, thanks.  I’m having problems understanding how it all relates to the New Covenant that we are currently under.  It’s like you’re saying Jesus died for our sins but we’re still guilty for the iniquities (corporate sin) of others.   It’s almost like implying that General George A. Custer’s grandsons should be hanged as a sacrifice to God. Where in the New Testament can we find even a hint of such an idea?

 

Granting whatever associated guilt that bestows the human race, I plead innocent in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

 

---

Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity.

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 11/11/2005 5:42:15 PM (GMT-6)

 

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

---

Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity.

I'm still figuring all this stuff out as well... that's the great thing about this discussion board: I don't think I always have to have every thought that I write down polished and solid. 

 

about the SATPOE, I'm still working my way through it... I'm up to chapter 9 finally, but I'm a horribly slow reader - especially when my mind starts going off on tangents while reading a book.  I do have some questions I'd like to bring up about the book, but I don't know if the questions I have in mind have already been discussed exhaustively.  I like the flow of the TWT's and how one leads into the next, but there's a couple issues I have about either TWT3 or 4.  One doesnt' seem to be quite as clear cut to me.  But I'll get to that later.

 

True, I agree that God seems to have possibly made an original decree that limited Him to turn back on and He may have set forth a particular time frame within which the decree remains valid. 

 

But my question is then, if God is sustaining all things, good acts as well as evil acts, does this cause Him to be "guilty by association"?  If we were to say that God is not guilty by association for sustaining the system, but remained untainted by sin and evil, how can we say that Jesus may have been tainted, therefore guilty, for weaving in and out of the "system" of his time?

 

I hope this all makes sense.  Because of time's sake, I'm not editing my posts as much as before while writing them.

---

My new mantra of the month:

 

Yeah, I think there was a good distinction between individual sin and passed-down iniquities.  However there is the question as to whether it is no longer true or not that a life must be taken for a life in regards to iniquities.  The question I have is this: did Christ remove both our sins AND passed-down iniquities?  If he did, does the example that Greg gave from 2 Samuel 21 still apply to us?  If say my ancestors killed most of someone else's ancestors, is there still "bloodguilt" on me and my family?  The chapter shows the whole "eye for an eye" thing (money and was not enough for the Gibeonites) but it seems that in the sermon Greg wasn't suggesting that we should take up the "eye for an eye" idea and become slaves ourselves to those of African descent, nor do I think it's possible for us to give up our homes and travel back to Europe giving back the land to the Native American groups.

 

I do want to be clear though: I do think we should apologize and make retributions to a certain extent.  A simple "oops, sorry" isn't sufficient to make up for all the damage our ancestors caused.  And I don't think that the retributions we've done for the Native Americans is sufficient either.

 

So the question is, how far should the retributions for past iniquities go?  Are we still guilty though we claim bloodline to Christ?

---

My new mantra of the month:

 

It is true that a system can be like a raging river running downhill... however we can't forget about free will to some extent.  (Trying to go off from the metaphor...)Is it possible for us to join the river in order to save an ant?  You know how ants fall into water and can hardly swim out of it.  If we were to dive in and gradually push the ant to shore, this shows a combination of some determinism (how the river pushes us along) and some free will (how we maneuver our way through the system).  However I wonder if the diving into a system is too, uhm, utilitarian? Hmm.

 

We of course can't forget about where we have free will, for which we are held accountable.

---

My new mantra of the month:

 

Whew... ok, last post of the day... have to clean up for band rehearsal. 

 

Good question... I'm not sure if we'll be able to come up with a clear-cut definition right away, but we can work through it to figure out a good working definition from which we can continue the discussion about whether a system can be inherently good or evil.

---

My new mantra of the month: