AQueen chuckles at above questions ! I do find questions interesting, challenging and I do enjoy pondering. I will be answering the following questions with Biblical answers. Did you think of these trick or entrapment questions ? HMMMMMM!!!
Abraham's Sacrifice of Issac and Ethics.
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
AQueen chuckles at above questions ! I do find questions interesting, challenging and I do enjoy pondering. I will be answering the following questions with Biblical answers. Did you think of these trick or entrapment questions ? HMMMMMM!!!
I really do not think you understand what I am doing. I am not trying to trap anyone nor are these trick questions. All we are doing is investigating the claims of the skeptics who attempt to argue that the sacrifice of Isaac is a violation of ethics.
1) No creator of anything is obliged to be benevolent toward His creation.
2) God has demonstrated that He chooses to be benevolent toward His creation despite the absence of oblegation
3) Abraham was not answerable to our societal norms and values; so we can't in fairness impose them on him
4) Abraham's first obligation was to God.
it(the thread) is based on a false and contradictory premise, somewhat with subtlety, and not by dwelling on what is pure and holy and right in yahshua.
-----------------------------------------------------------
and Isaac belonged to God , as the Child of Promise.. this foreshadowing the coming Christ... indeed...
so someone claiming bad ethics on Abraham, has no grounds for their courtcase, Isaac was God's from the Very Beginning... 'for in Isaac shall thy Seed be called'... foreshadowing of those Born of the Spirit of God, not the flesh, as it is with Hagar and her offspriing Ishmael
Very good Marc. The most basic problem in challenging the elements of this narrative is the elevation of human reason above the will of God.
1. Evaluation of the narrative from the human understanding of right and wrong places constraints upon the authority of God and on the response of Abraham. In other words it limits what we will allow God to require of us and it restricts human obligation to divine command that does not seem to fit within our framework of recognized ethics.
2. The Word of God, not reason must be allowed to develop and formulate our understand of right and wrong. Right and wrong will always begin in the mind of God and is then relayed to the mind of man, never the other way around.
The World attempts to place God on trial in this debate. But, God and ethics are not on trial here. What is on trial is the faith of Abraham and public opinion will not be the standard by which Abraham will be judged.
1. It is faith, not ethics by which one gains approval from God, Hebrews 11.
2. Whatever God does or requires of man is right regardless of our understand of ethics.
3. Ethics that are rooted in human reason are subjective and are very often situationally contingent. In God rests absolutes.
The most basic problem in challenging the elements of this narrative is the elevation of human reason above the will of God.
1. Evaluation of the narrative from the human understanding of right and wrong places constraints upon the authority of God and on the response of Abraham. In other words it limits what we will allow God to require of us and it restricts human obligation to divine command that does not seem to fit within our framework of recognized ethics.
2. The Word of God, not reason must be allowed to develop and formulate our understand of right and wrong. Right and wrong will always begin in the mind of God and is then relayed to the mind of man, never the other way around.
The World attempts to place God on trial in this debate. But, God and ethics are not on trial here. What is on trial is the faith of Abraham and public opinion will not be the standard by which Abraham will be judged.
1. It is faith, not ethics by which one gains approval from God, Hebrews 11.
2. Whatever God does or requires of man is right regardless of our understand of ethics.
3. Ethics that are rooted in human reason are subjective and are very often situationally contingent. In God rests absolutes.
Last edited:
W
weakness
Guest
N
newlife7
Guest
The ethics are in Abraham's obedience to God and his trust in God's goodness no matter what the situation looked like.
W
weakness
Guest
W
weakness
Guest
There is nothing in the text to suggest God had ever revealed this to him. The only way Abraham can come to this conclusion is to generalize the death of Isaac back to the promises of God.
What barriers to faith must Abraham overcome to reach the conclusion he does about offering Isaac?
1. Human Rationality which comes out of human experience. What would seem the rational expected results of:
a. Knife to the throat – Absolute outcome
b. Fire to the flesh – absolute outcome
These have always produced irreversible results – the death and total thermal consumption of the animal.
2. Human Experience - What is Abraham's experience with offering sacrifices? Sacrifices do not survive the ordeal; not ever! Human rationality based on human experience says, “If I do this my son will be irretrievably dead and gone.” Something is going to have to happen in Abraham's reasoning processes that transcends the human experiential index.
3. Human Will - He does not want his son to die.
4. The Rational Dilemma or The Rational Contradiction – If Isaac is dead, how will the promise be fulfilled.
Upon what does Abraham learn to depend? The faithfulness of God. This is most certainly reflected in his conclusions.
1. His conclusion reached beyond the boundaries of applied logic - “God is able to raise one even from the dead” This is certainly not a logical conclusion. How can he know this?
a. The text never says that this knowledge was ever revealed to him.
b. He has never had a sacrifice get up off the altar and follow him home after the experience.
c. He has had no experience with the dead being raised to life again nor does he know anyone who has.
d. The only thing his experience can confirm to him about death is that it is always decisive and permanent .
2. Abraham crossed from the rational to the what I regard as the super-rational. This is reasoning from the Word of God. Isaac's death must then be reckoned as an irrelevant factor in the promises of God.
3. What has Abraham come to understand about the promise of God?
a. The promise is not dependent upon Isaac but upon God.
b. The promise is absolute because the Word of God is absolute.
c. Determinacy rests in the power of God, not in the situation.
d. Where God is concerned, there are no irreversible conditions, not even death.
What barriers to faith must Abraham overcome to reach the conclusion he does about offering Isaac?
1. Human Rationality which comes out of human experience. What would seem the rational expected results of:
a. Knife to the throat – Absolute outcome
b. Fire to the flesh – absolute outcome
These have always produced irreversible results – the death and total thermal consumption of the animal.
2. Human Experience - What is Abraham's experience with offering sacrifices? Sacrifices do not survive the ordeal; not ever! Human rationality based on human experience says, “If I do this my son will be irretrievably dead and gone.” Something is going to have to happen in Abraham's reasoning processes that transcends the human experiential index.
3. Human Will - He does not want his son to die.
4. The Rational Dilemma or The Rational Contradiction – If Isaac is dead, how will the promise be fulfilled.
Upon what does Abraham learn to depend? The faithfulness of God. This is most certainly reflected in his conclusions.
1. His conclusion reached beyond the boundaries of applied logic - “God is able to raise one even from the dead” This is certainly not a logical conclusion. How can he know this?
a. The text never says that this knowledge was ever revealed to him.
b. He has never had a sacrifice get up off the altar and follow him home after the experience.
c. He has had no experience with the dead being raised to life again nor does he know anyone who has.
d. The only thing his experience can confirm to him about death is that it is always decisive and permanent .
2. Abraham crossed from the rational to the what I regard as the super-rational. This is reasoning from the Word of God. Isaac's death must then be reckoned as an irrelevant factor in the promises of God.
3. What has Abraham come to understand about the promise of God?
a. The promise is not dependent upon Isaac but upon God.
b. The promise is absolute because the Word of God is absolute.
c. Determinacy rests in the power of God, not in the situation.
d. Where God is concerned, there are no irreversible conditions, not even death.
1. The test of Abraham had to happen to open the threshold for Jesus to come.
2. Abraham was a righteous man. He left country, family...for God. He would not limit himself to the known, but also went beyond.
Had Isaac not consented; it would have been a ritual murder. How do I know
Isaac consented? Well; Abraham was past 100 years old and Isaac was strong
enough to shoulder a load of wood and mature enough to fully understand a
burnt offering. Had Isaac wanted to get away it would have been easy to
resist his dad; if not easier to just outrun him.
============================================
Last edited:
Yes God did command the Israel NOT to sacrifice their children to a FALSE GOD. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Issac to the ONE TRUE GOD.
God has the right to ask the TEST of faith. No because it was a TEST of Abraham's faith. God would not have asked this of someone WHO did not trust God as Abraham did.
I had not really thought about this aspect of it before but now that you bring it up, just on the surface, I would tend to agree with you. Isaac represented a type and as such he must be a willing sacrifice. You make a good point here.
Agreed. But has God asked you to sacrifice your only child? Or has your faith been tested in others ways? And was Job asked to sacrifice his only child,or was Job faith tested in another manner?
Each of us have our faith tested on one way or another, to one degree or another, some more severely than others. This brings up a good question. Why did God not allow Abraham to go through with the sacrifice since Abraham was rightfully convinced that God could raise his son from the dead?