From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Thu Jul 17 2003 - 05:02:58 EDT
David Campbell wrote in part:
>An action that was totally in accord with the goal of sanctification and Christian love would more or less by definition be right. However, an action that seems to be the best thing to do in a given situation, based on all that we know, and done with the goal of helping others, may not be the right thing to do in light of what we do not know.
Let me clarify. In a recent post, Rich Faussette said, "How can a TRULY sanctified Christian TRULY motivated by agape sin? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?" One way of describing what I'm looking for here is to say that I'm looking to answer Rich's questions.
Christians are free of the OT laws. Some say we're free of the ceremonial laws but not the moral laws. But scriptures themselves don't make such distinction. So just how free are Christians? I'd like to believe that, if I'm fully motivated by agape, I'm totally free to do what I think is appropriate in a given situation, even if the thing I decide to do violates some religious or civil law. For example, if I'm on a crowded freeway and everyone else is going 10 mi/h over the limit, it would be wrong for me to impede the flow by sticking to the limit. Exceeding the limit by 10 mi/h in such a case, provided I'd carefully judged that it was safe, would not be a sin, as I'd be breaking the law out of consideration for fellow drivers. We note that Jesus violated religious laws out of compassion for fellow humans. I think he'd break the speed limit in this case for the same reason.
Let's ignore for the moment the question of whether or not it's possible for a Christian to be fully motivated by agape, because what I'm after here is the underlying principle of ethical behavior, if there is one. To get at such a principle we assume that the Christian is momentarily perfect so we can avoid the complexities of real life that would otherwise cloud the discussion. So the question is whether a perfect Christian can do anything he wants. Is any behavior intrinsically wrong? If so, what kinds? If we can find an underlying ethical principle, we'll at least have a basis for answering such questions. Without such basis we'd be pretty much lost when trying to decide how to act in new situations.
From the NT one can conclude most of the time that the underlying ethical principle is love (agape). "...Love is the fulfillment of the law." If that is true, then a Christian motivated by agape is free to do anything at all as long as his or her motivation remains pure. Could a Christian beat his or her children to death without sinning? A Christian motivated by agape could never come close to doing such a thing. "Love" may be the person's excuse, but being a father myself I know that a large part of the motivation for such behavior would not be love but anger and frustration. Could a Christian kill other humans without sinning? Jesus met military men and did not condemn their vocation, so the answer is yes. Could a Christian have sex with someone of his or her own gender without sinning? To answer this, we'd need to know whether it is possible to maintain agape motivation in such erotic encounters. From observations of committed homosexual couples, I judge that it is possible. That is, they seem to have the same kind of love, commitment and consideration for one another as a Christian married couple.
As I've pointed out before, Jesus' words on divorce unfortunately seem to raise a question as to whether the underlying ethical principle is love. His comments suggest that ultimate morality might consist of a set of rules based on an unknown principle to which we have no access. As Debbie Mann asked in a recent post, what is a Christian to do after once getting divorced? The process of getting divorced typically engenders rafts of sins, but once the process is complete, why wouldn't forgiveness and compassion allow the person to get on with a new life?
So I'm left hoping that Jesus never really said those words, and that agape is the full and complete underlying ethical principle.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: bivalve
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Sin, Agape, etc.?
>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. <
Some definitions are needed. I am familiar with sanctification defined as a process, not completed in this life. Based on this premise, I am not certian what a truly sanctified Christian would be. All true Christians are in the process of sanctification, though not necessarily progressing well. No Christian is totally sanctified in this life. (There are some who claim that this is possible; not sure how they would deal with the question.)
An action that was totally in accord with the goal of sanctification and Christian love would more or less by deinfition be right. However, an action that seems to be the best thing to do in a given situation, based on all that we know, and done with the goal of helping others, may not be the right thing to do in light of what we do not know.
I do not think that we can say that a given act must be good because a particular Christian has done it or because he did it with good motives.
PS: Double-check the to field when replying to this thread to be sure you're not still sending messages to others.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 17 2003 - 05:04:16 EDT