Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I did not say that you supported Deputy Authority. I said that you repeated the presumption that Noah being naked and drink in his own tent was a sin. And without that sin, there isn't even a basis for one of the strongest tenets of DA.
If we refuse them the idea that there was a sin in Noah that warranted covering, then the idea that we have to cover a sinning DA can't be derived from this story.
I would never accuse you of supporting DA. I did note that you were continuing to call Noah's actions a sin.
Ohio also pointed out that cursing Canaan may have been a sin. And that is possibly true. But it is not the "sin" that the other brothers covered, but was the action of lashing out against the one who exposed a so-called deputy authority. As I see it, DA cannot be derived from this story even if you accept that an unexplained OT story could be the basis for a NT doctrine not otherwise spelled out (and contrary to principles otherwise clearly laid out).
|
Okay, I see where you were coming from.
Well, Noah certainly reacts as if he had done something wrong. Otherwise why would he curse his grandson who is not shown to be even involved? Noah reaction is the classic reaction of someone who got caught in a compromising position (especially if that someone had a hangover), he lashed out in a very personal way at the person who caught him.
To me it's like a neighbor who get so mad at you that he says, "I hope your damn kid gets sick and dies." What could justify such a pronouncement? Nothing in any time period that I can imagine. So it blows my mind when people trying to paint Noah as on the moral high ground here. It leads to all kinds of convoluted reasoning.
I find it hard to believe that a culture as primitive as Noah's, which had just escaped a world so corrupt (presumably sexual corruption was a big part of that) that God destroyed it would be squeamish about someone laying naked in his own tent. I think is clear that Noah was exposed for something more than just plain old innocent nakedness, otherwise why the violent reaction when he got caught? I can't prove that, but to me, given human nature, that's where the tea leaves point.
Certainly that conclusion seems more natural than presuming that Noah's reaction was the exercise of Deputy Authority on behalf of God. I agree with you than the LCM's extrapolation of the meaning of this passage is way down the list of plausible meanings.