From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Wed Jul 16 2003 - 14:47:29 EDT
Yet, divorce was legal under the law and we are now free from the law. I
have heard this described as God's perfect will vs. God's permissive will.
And then there is, "What's next? What now?" in the case where the divorce
has happened, been forgiven and the new marriage has been formed. What is
the correct answer, then?
I know that I was called to my second marriage. It wasn't a gift, it was a
calling. Because this seems to contradict God's perfect will, I have cause
to wonder about other relationships that do likewise.
Burgy's friends know for themselves. They know whether they are in God's
permissive will - "God will use them inspite of.." or God's perfect will
"God wants them exactly where they are."
In my case, perfect will may have changed after forgiveness. Being Christian
is certainly a dynamic, and not a static, process.
Why was the pastor copied on the previous e-mail? I thought it had been
particularly requested that he was not? I hit reply all and was surprised to
see his name pop up.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Don Winterstein
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:22 AM
To: John W Burgeson
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; pastorcraigpeterson@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Sin?
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!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 16 2003 - 14:43:53 EDT