Pre-order now 'Mosaic', the new album from Theocracy

Yeah using that as an argument for sprinkling sounds like a huge reach. I think, as Kerrick said, that metaphor was more or less “artistic license” on Matt’s part. Apparently he wrote the song when he was 19, before he ever started Theocracy, and didn’t record it until recently

As a part of when I counsel people on baptism I use the Flood (which is used in 1 Peter 3:20-21), the Red Sea, and the Crossing through the Jordan. All signify deliverance by God's hand, according to God's promise into a new way of living, passing through water. Maybe I'm doing it all wrong but I see them as great parallels.

This albums kicks!
I haven't given the 1st album much of a chance yet and I didn't care for ghost ship, but I loved MOS and ATWB. Mosaic is right there with those 2 IMO.

bgsully wrote:This albums kicks!
I haven't given the 1st album much of a chance yet and I didn't care for ghost ship, but I loved MOS and ATWB. Mosaic is right there with those 2 IMO.

I’d definitely give the first album a chance too, it’s my second favorite after MoS

Sevenoneself wrote:My youngest son and I had an indepth listen of the last 2 songs yesterday on our way to hockey practice and back.

Lord, Liar or Messiah: we stand with my oldest son's review that this is one of our favourites of the album. It's pretty brilliant how uses biblical storytelling to develop this classic apologetics argument.

Red Sea: there's lots of cool parts, but there doesn't seem to be any musical cohesion. Musical themes are used once and never returned to. Because I'm not a fan of the song MoS, my conclusion would be that Theocracy should stick with songs under 10 minutes!

A question, especially for the theologically minded. Is the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea ever used, biblically, as an illustration of baptism and/or washing of sins away? Without having looked deeper, my understanding was that it's only used as a symbol of judgement. I was a little surprised yesterday going through the lyrics that Matt used the whole second 1/2 of the song to illustrate this connection. Which I don't think is there. 

Having said all this, please don't think I dislike this album or Theocracy. They're in my top 10 bands of all time, secular or Christian, metal or not metal! This just happens to be a forum where people who love this genre dig a little deeper.

As CrimsonWarrior said, 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 expressly says that going through the red sea is akin to baptism. 

"For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea; 2and they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3and they all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was [a]Christ. 5Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased; for their dead bodies were spread out in the wilderness.

But as I said, 1 Cor 10 speaks of the Israelites passing through the sea and draws a baptism parallel. But the parallel is not with pharaoh’s army drowning.

Pethead wrote:But as I said, 1 Cor 10 speaks of the Israelites passing through the sea and draws a baptism parallel. But the parallel is not with pharaoh’s army drowning.

Paul is saying the red sea can be allegorized to showing us things about NT baptism. He is interpreting Exodus, not giving us new doctrine. So it doesn't need to have every detailed explained. We just need to read the narrative correctly and with its full meaning. The Egyptian army drowning is allegorical of sins being removed. For example, even the OT says elsewhere that our sins are cast into the sea. "He will again take pity on us; He will trample on our wrongdoings. Yes, You will cast all their sins Into the depths of the sea." - Micah 7:19 NASB.

That’s not exegesis; it’s illustrating beyond (not against) the text. I’m not saying it’s illegitimate application, but it’s not Paul’s point.

It’s also not as if we can take other uses of “sea” and make those connections. For example, God says in Job that he set the limits of the sea. That doesn’t mean that he set the limits of our sins—other texts provide that info.

Pethead wrote:That’s not exegesis; it’s illustrating beyond (not against) the text. I’m not saying it’s illegitimate application, but it’s not Paul’s point.

It is allegorical exegesis of the OT based on a thoroughly described truth in the NT, just like Paul does in Galatians 4:24 and tells us he is allegorizing. Beyond the literal sense of the text is how God intended it to be read, as Paul is telling you in 1 Corinthians: it occurred and was written for our sakes, to get a different sense than the mere literal interpretation.

Pethead wrote:It’s also not as if we can take other uses of “sea” and make those connections. For example, God says in Job that he set the limits of the sea. That doesn’t mean that he set the limits of our sins—other texts provide that info.

Well I don't know exactly what one would mean by there being "limits to our sins," but one would not take that from the OT allegory simply because it's not NT teaching. You are also misapplying the allegory: the sea is not the sin in this allegory. The egyptian army is the sin.

I prefer to let the inspired apostle give me his allegory and not go beyond it.

My point is that you can’t just run to another text that uses a term or an image and assume it’s referring to the same thing. Just because another text refers to our seas being drowned in the sea doesn’t mean that we can do the same thing with Exodus anymore than we can use the reference to the limits of the sea in Job to teach the same thing as Romans 1: that God sets limits on sin unless he “gives us over.”

Where does Paul say the Egyptian army is the sin? He doesn’t. That’s my point.

Pethead wrote:I prefer to let the inspired apostle give me his allegory and not go beyond it.

That's a faulty way of interpreting the OT. Paul is telling you how to read and interpret it, not giving you an exhaustive list of occurrences where only in these weird places is there some happenstance allegory that only Paul knows about. Christians have always used the allegorical method of interpretation since the beginning, not to replace the literal interpretation, but to give additional proof of NT truths from the OT. Read any early Christian writing: Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. all interpret the OT this way.

I think we’re simply gonna have to disagree. I realize the NT allegorizes certain passages, but:

1. It tells us when it’s allegorizing (e.g. Gal 4)
2. I don’t really care that much for what the ECFs did with the text because I often find it lacking foundation. 
3. This method introduces unbridled subjectivity in interpretation. Where does it stop? You can read the ECFs to find plenty of, shall we say, fanciful interpretations. 
4. The NT never gives us a command to allegorize for our hermeneutics. The vast majority of NT used of the OT are not allegorical.

Again, I’m not saying that what you’re doing is illegitimate. I think it’s fine to make these illustrations and applications. But I also don’t think it’s exegesis at its purest level.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with drawing metaphors from the Bible that aren’t explicitly stated in the Bible, as long as they convey valid Biblical principles. Comparing the red sea washing away the Egyptians to the blood of Christ washing away sin, or even to baptism symbolically washing away sin, may not be specifically in the Bible, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making the comparison

I don’t, either. I’m just saying it’s not a specifically biblical comparison. 

I also want to be clear that typology and allegory are not the same thing.

Pethead wrote:I think we’re simply gonna have to disagree. I realize the NT allegorizes certain passages, but:

1. It tells us when it’s allegorizing (e.g. Gal 4)
2. I don’t really care that much for what the ECFs did with the text because I often find it lacking foundation. 
3. This method introduces unbridled subjectivity in interpretation. Where does it stop? You can read the ECFs to find plenty of, shall we say, fanciful interpretations. 
4. The NT never gives us a command to allegorize for our hermeneutics. The vast majority of NT used of the OT are not allegorical.

1. That time Paul tells you he is allegorizing, yes. He also is plainly allegorizing elsewhere, like in the subject 1 Corinthians 10, yet doesn't say so explicitly. You have to presuppose the rule "only when it says it is allegorizing is it allegorizing," but I can likewise presuppose that Paul encourages us to find allegory in the OT that fits NT theology by example. Most Christians will admit this at some point. Nowhere do Scriptures say the Book of Esther say it is an allegory, but it is well acknowledged by most Christians that it is an allegory of Jesus saving the church from the schemes of the devil.

2. Well you could always change your mind and realize that they knew what they were talking about.

3. No it doesn't, that's a strawman. I already explained to you the parameters: if it's not in the NT, then it's an invalid allegory. The NT teaches our sins are washed away. Therefore a logically cohesive allegory in Exodus in which we can easily pin what subject is analogous to sin being washed away confirms it to be a valid allegory.

 4. The NT never prohibits us from allegorizing nor commands us to only interpret by the OT's literal meaning. And whether or not the vast majority of NT citations of the OT are not allegorical has no bearing on whether we are permitted to find them

Deleted for being irrelevant. Theocracy rules.

I think y’all are splitting hairs here

Agreed. 

Friday13, sorry that I came across too harshly. I think what Red Sea (the song) is doing is more along the lines of typology and I don’t have a problem with it. We don’t agree on everything, but I think I see your point. God bless.

Pethead wrote:Agreed. 

Friday13, sorry that I came across too harshly. I think what Red Sea (the song) is doing is more along the lines of typology and I don’t have a problem with it. We don’t agree on everything, but I think I see your point. God bless.

No problem. God bless.

Back on Theocracy, let’s hope the next album doesn’t take 7 years to materialize!