From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 16 2003 - 11:44:18 EDT
Don,
You said "So the question remains as to whether any act done by a truly
sanctified Christian truly motivated by agape is in itself wrong. We're
talking about _in principle_ here, rather than in practice, because in
practice anything and everything can be sinful."
We would have to then include Christian parents who beat their children to
death or half to death trying to "discipline" them. Parents who are fanatics
often believe they will "save" their children's souls from eternal damnation
if they can "make" them behave or even kill them before the age of
accountability. Believing they are sparing them, they do "love" them with
agape love, but also commit murder or severely abuse them, willing to take
whatever punishment comes upon themselves, in a physical (in this life) or
the spiritual (in the next) sense, "sacrificing" their own lives (or
eternities) for the eternity of their children.
Sondra
>From: "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
>To: "John W Burgeson" <jwburgeson@juno.com>
>CC: <asa@calvin.edu>, <pastorcraigpeterson@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: Sin?
>Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:21:31 -0700
>
>Burgy wrote:
>
> >I am uncomfortable with drawing "All things are permissible" that far,
>Don. We are too imperfect. When you write: "... that a sanctified
>Christian motivated by agape would not do such things... ." it brings to
>mind those 19th slave holders, many of whom were "sanctified Christians,"
>who nonetheless had the mind set that a black skin meant "type of animal"
>and so saw no sin in their treatment of the Negro men and women that
>served them. I've read some of the sermons and articles of that time. I
>recognize in the speaker/writers fellow Christians, motivated by agape,
>who yet justified conditions that today we look upon in horror.
>
>
>When Paul wrote those words ("All things are permissible..."), he was
>addressing a situation where people who considered themselves Christian
>were behaving in obviously unchristian ways. So his emphasis was on the
>clause that followed: "...not everything is beneficial." So people who
>perhaps thought they were sanctified Christians motivated by agape were
>clearly sinning; and this means that external guidance is often necessary
>in practice.
>
>However, here we are trying to establish principles rather than to correct
>practices. So the question I wanted to consider was whether there is any
>act whatever that is in itself evil, if it is done by a sanctified
>Christian motivated by agape. Those who abused slaves may have felt they
>were not sinning, but that would be because they misunderstood agape, and
>Paul the apostle would definitely have criticized their behavior.
>
>So the question remains as to whether any act done by a truly sanctified
>Christian truly motivated by agape is in itself wrong. We're talking about
>_in principle_ here, rather than in practice, because in practice anything
>and everything can be sinful.
>
>Paul does not dispute "all things are permissible...", but he implies that
>the principle can be readily abused. The ultimate question, then, is
>whether the NT unambiguously makes any act necessarily wrong if it is done
>by a truly sanctified Christian truly motivated by agape. I would like to
>think it does not.
>
>However, Jesus' comment on divorce (Matt. 6) that I cited earlier seems to
>imply a special case--although one that many contemporary Protestants seem
>to officially ignore in practice. Jesus seems to be implying that there's
>something about a marriage bond that makes sin inescapable for a divorced
>woman and for the husband of a previously divorced woman. I can't think of
>any other such clear-cut case; and this one seems inconsistent with Jesus'
>usual emphasis on compassion to the point of disregarding the letter of the
>law. Hence I wonder whether Jesus may have been misquoted.
>
>Don
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John W Burgeson
> To: dfwinterstein@msn.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu ; pastorcraigpeterson@yahoo.com
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Sin?
>
>
> Don wrote, in part: "Here's a thought: Why not approach Christian
> morality from the words of Paul in I Corinthians 6 & 10, "All things
>are
> permissible for me..."? That is, under the NT law of love, no act of
>any
> kind is intrinsically sinful if it is done by a sanctified Christian and
> motivated by agape. This would not be to say there are no intrinsically
> sinful acts, but that a sanctified Christian motivated by agape would
>not
> do such things. Intrinsically sinful acts would be any that could not
>be
> done in fellowship with God. ... In any case, such a principle of
> Christian morality would provide a useful basis for drawing conclusions
> about relations among homosexuals. That is, if the relationship was
> between sanctified Christians, and their sex acts were motivated in part
> by agape, they would not be sinning. "
>
> I am uncomfortable with drawing "All things are permissible" that far,
> Don. We are too imperfect. When you write: "... that a sanctified
> Christian motivated by agape would not do such things... ." it brings to
> mind those 19th slave holders, many of whom were "sanctified
>Christians,"
> who nonetheless had the mind set that a black skin meant "type of
>animal"
> and so saw no sin in their treatment of the Negro men and women that
> served them. I've read some of the sermons and articles of that time. I
> recognize in the speaker/writers fellow Christians, motivated by agape,
> who yet justified conditions that today we look upon in horror.
>
> We learn so slowly ...
>
> Peace
>
> John Burgeson (Burgy)
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 16 2003 - 11:44:55 EDT