|
Post by Josh on Aug 22, 2012 8:53:22 GMT -8
This passage could also be brought to bear, though not conclusively:
1 Cor. 10: 1-4
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
One could argue that the sustenance the people of Israel found, albeit largely unknowing, was made possible by Jesus' "pouring out" of his blood, the water of life.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 22, 2012 14:12:53 GMT -8
Hmmm. I wouldn't read it that way. I would think he was saying, "Even as the Red Sea crossing is a minor fulfillment of entering into the Kingdom that would be fullfilled in baptism in Jesus, even so the eating of manna and drinking of water from the Rock is ultimately fulfilled in the sustenance found in the kingdom of God through Jesus."
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 22, 2012 15:57:23 GMT -8
That's why I said it wasn't conclusive. But what do you think about the verses and thoughts in my previous post?
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 26, 2012 7:11:55 GMT -8
I believe that Jesus' death is the keystone to providing salvation to all people, including pre-Jesus faithful. God established the kingdom of God from the very beginning to be the salvation of everyone, and Jesus' death was essential to carry that out. I think the sacrificial system was a poor example of Jesus' death, and it turned out to be a distraction from rather than a pointer to salvation. I'm not denying it was a type, but I don't believe that many people understood it (then or now) well enough for it to act as education. My original point is that God didn't set up the sacrificial system for forgiveness. Repentance and an act of faith is the prerequisite for forgiveness, and always has been. Sacrifice could be used as an act of faith, but often wasn't. But the sacrifice itself wasn't essential for forgiveness, and the OT clearly says that. It also says that human sacrifice is an abomination to God. What is pleasing to God is the act of sacrificial love for others. (which might make you think that I hold to an Abalardian view of the atonement, but I don't
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 26, 2012 20:32:02 GMT -8
Steve,
Have you shared your atonement view yet? If not, I'd like to throw in my guess.
I kind of see you as the Christus Victor type based on some of your other comments and views expressed so far. Am I far off?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2012 20:40:23 GMT -8
Considering how much of the OT is dedicated to establishing this type, it seems weird to me that God would have gone to such a great length if, as you argue, it was usually a misunderstood distraction. Seems to me the NT authors got the connection nicely.
What is the difference between saying Jesus' death was a "keystone" to providing salvation, and saying it was a necessary foundation to forgiveness?
Anyway, to admit that God set things up so that Jesus HAD to die in order for God to grant forgiveness still doesn't pin down an exact theory of atonement (substitution or otherwise).
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 27, 2012 19:14:39 GMT -8
There's no difference between "foundation" and "keystone". "Foundation" is just overused is all.
And you are exactly right. Pretty much all atonement theories speak of the necessity of Jesus' death. The only question is why-- the mechanics of it.
|
|