The Bible makes it extremely clear that Tamar was a virgin and virtuous; and that she had resisted Amnon’s persistent attempts at seduction (2 Samuel 13:2). As well being virtuous, Tamar comes across as intelligent. When you read Tamar’s words in 2 Samuel, she does not sound at all like a naive or stupid woman.

Amnon succeeded in raping Tamar only when he followed the unscrupulous and deceitful scheme suggested by his friend Jonadab, who is described as “a very shrewd man” in verse 3.
Peter Barnes writes that “Tamar was intending to be kind and loving to her half-brother Amnon, but it all goes disastrously wrong. I will not push this too far but Tamar is rather naive in falling for Amnon’s deception (13:8-10).”

I very much doubt that Tamar went to Amnon’s room intending to be kind and loving. I think it is more likely that she went simply because she had been commanded to do so by King David, who himself had been duped by Amnon’s wicked scheme (verse 7). Perhaps Tamar was not naive at all and knew the risks, but was unable or unwilling to disobey her father, the king. If perhaps Tamar was in anyway naive, King David was more so!

To suggest that Tamar’s naivety somehow contributed to the rape with its profound humiliation, disgrace and violence, makes me feel ill.

I usually end up using ‘egal’ by default as most people understand this. Perhaps I should try out “indie” instead of “interdependant”!

I like “mutualists” as well.

1 – For us – fleshly individuals, the law, combined with our flesh results in sin and death. The law points to what is good, but due to it’s relationship with our flesh, it cannot get us there. Instead, because of who we are it undermines our attempts to live for God.

2 – God knows this. He even gave us more laws to emphasise the problem (i.e., he did so with a purpose). The laws were holy, righteous and good, but caused sin and death when joined with our flesh. The more explicit law is made, the harder it is for us not to break it.

3 – At the heart of the law has always been to love God, and love each other.

4 – Jesus came so that we could be justified (made holy, righteous and good) even though we have failed to meet the law. As Jesus is the only way to the Father, the law is effectively nullified (when we accept his Lordship), and as a result it’s power over us is no more. We are no longer slaves to sin.

5 – The more we know and understand how Jesus has met the demands of the law for us, the more free we are from it’s affects. This is where the hOly Spirit is helpful. Jesus makes it clear that the Holy Spirit will remind us of the truth of what Jesus has done. The HOly Spirit helps us know and understand that we are free from the demands of the law. The Holy Spirit often works through other people in our lives.

6 – Because we are free from the demands of the law, we are better able to love God and love each other. So Paul reminds us that there is only one debt that remains outstanding – that we love one another. Now, however, while we remain firmly anchored to the cross (with the help of the Spirit), we are better equipped to live the law in our lives. We are slaves to righteousness.

7 – And if we fail to love at points, as we all do, John reminds us that we have an advocate with the Father.

I was just lying awake this morning thinking about our discussion and verses like Acts 5:32 and I thought perhaps I should say that I am happy to accept your understanding if we see obedience as accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour! Once again we seem to find agreement!

I do not think in your comment, “Your logic for Acts 5:32 is something like God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey him after receiving the Holy Spirit. I do think that is twisting things” that you have understood me, but I think we might have clarified this a bit. I thought you understood obedience to be saying “doing the works of the law”. If, however, obedience at this point is accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour, then I can even see how faith and obedience are similar. I think we are in full agreement…except perhaps the following…

I like your points A-F. I notice, when I look for double justification, that it is in B and E. Correct? To me this is different from your Theses and what you said earlier in your speculation, as earlier you were suggesting that the covenantal justification comes before absolute justification. For me that was a big sticking point, but now you declare absolute justification at B. I think if you stick to that order life should be much easier for you! I hope I am reading you right?

But this leads me to a few loose ends. You have said that there are pastoral situations where it would be appropriate to emphasise covenantal justification without the immediate context of absolute justification. I cannot think of an example. Can you offer either a Biblical or hypothetical one? (Although I am using your ‘double justification’ language I am not comfortable with it. Your covenantal justification I see as evidence of absolute justification i.e. there is only one type of justification and we either have it or not. If we have it we will live differently. If we do not live differently we do not have it.)

And really, really finally. You have not mentioned the law explicitly in your points. In Romans 8 we hear of the law of the Spirit of life. How do you see the Spirit working in us to sanctify us, and how does this relate to the law? I ask not because of an issue I have with what you have said, but because for me, the whole thing did not make sense until I nutted this out, so I am wondering where you stand. Perhaps I should outline what I believe?

Regarding Acts 5:32, I think there is an order there on account of the grammatical logic; and if we don’t understand that, we end up twisting the meaning of the verse. Basically what Peter is saying is that obedience to God in the new covenant age means accepting Jesus as Leader and Savior (v. 31), and that on account of that faith/obedience in the disciples, the Holy Spirit has been given to them (with the implication that you non-Christian Jewish leaders have missed out). I admit that the obedience of faith at conversion is worked in us by the Holy Spirit in the first place, but the order obedience (of conversion) leading to receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is nonetheless present in the text.

It’s something like the order in Acts 2:42: repent and be baptized, and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Surely there’s an order there!

Your logic for Acts 5:32 is something like God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey him after receiving the Holy Spirit. I do think that is twisting things.

You’d probably use a similar “logic” for Heb 5:9.

What about Rev 3:4-5? Is there no order there? Even the language of being worthy to walk with Jesus in white is used!

The way it all goes together, I suggest, is like this:

A) the Holy Spirit moves us to accept the gospel (i.e., conversion);

B) at conversion we enter a state of justification (absolute justification in Christ through faith);

C) conversion also entails the reception of the gift of the Spirit;

D) the Spirit works sanctification in us;

E) sanctification results in, on the day of judgment, an acknowledgment that we have lived a sanctified life through the power of the Spirit (covenantal justification), and (most importantly) a formal proclamation that Jesus’ blood covers our sins (absolute justification);

F) absolute justification on the day of judgment then qualifies us to experience the realization of the fullness of the promised blessing.

All I’m saying is that sometimes in Scripture a writer may say: “Make sure you have D, because we have to have D in order to experience F.”

In saying D leads to F, they are not denying the rest, but they are still saying D is necessary for F, therefore pursue D. And sometimes they may even summarize D as “obey,” hence sentiments like obedience is a condition for eternal life, or Heb 12:14: “Strive … for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”

I feel that you are not allowing Scripture the right to say D -> F when it wants to.

January 3, 2010 10:17 PM

Steven Coxhead said…
Romans 8:13: “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

What clearer example could we have than this that D -> F?

Hence Phil 1:9-11: “And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.”

In other words, D -> E (part A). Paul wants us to be filled with the fruits of righteousness on the day of judgment for God’s glory, but also because he is aware that there will be a judgment on the level of our covenant response. See also 1 Cor 3:13-15.

January 3, 2010 11:28 PM

Steven Coxhead said…
Regarding the 32 theses, they reflect that fact that, in the Old Testament prophets as a whole, the call to repent (in the context of the covenant lawsuit that they were prosecuting against Israel) focuses on D -> E -> F.

January 3, 2010 11:37 PM”