From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 03:58:09 EDT
I'm disappointed, David, that you treated the nits but not the dog. But my provocative phraseology probably shares much of the blame. Anyway, I'm not really interested in the nits but in the big issue, which is, can we trash all laws in favor of the law of love? I should think this possibility would have strong appeal to scientists, especially physicists, who would like to express truth as simply and elegantly as possible. When I say "trash all laws" I'm using provocative language again; what I mean is, can we express all individual laws that are still valid for NT Christians as derivatives of the law of love? For example, stealing is clearly a sin in most cases, but it is so because it violates agape. I can imagine cases where stealing would be in keeping with agape and hence not sinful. In such cases we'd look to agape as the standard by which to judge.
>>We note that Jesus violated religious laws out of compassion for fellow humans.<
>Note that these were generally the customs that had been added on to the OT laws. Jesus claimed that the religious leaders were misinterpreting the OT laws and replacing them with their own customs, not that one ought not to obey them.
I do want to address this nit. Compare Matt. 12:1-2 with Numbers 15:32-36. Harvesting grain on the Sabbath is not qualitatively different from gathering firewood on the Sabbath, so to be consistent with the Numbers incident Jesus' disciples should have been stoned to death for their infraction. Jesus in effect says they're hungry, so let them go ahead, in violation of the Sabbath law. Compassion overruled law, as it was always meant to do.
God wants our love, both for himself and for fellow humans, not our adherence to this or that rule. I assert that those who love God best are not those obsessed by following rules but those who, like David, enjoy and love God for the person he is. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."
Well, if there's a response, I won't be around to field it, as I'm off to the high Sierras to contemplate big issues and nits.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: bivalve
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Sin, Agape, etc.?
>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.<
Although those terms are not used in the Bible, and there is no exhaustive list of what OT laws do or do not apply, many ceremonial laws are specifically identified in the NT as superceded, whereas many moral laws are identified as continuing to apply. For example, Paul mentions to the Ephesians that those who stole are no longer to steal. Thus, do not steal still applies to Christians. Conversely, he declares that the Galatians ought not to get circumcised. So scriptures do distinguish between continuing and superceded laws.
Note also that the passages on freedom from the law focus first of all on our not having to earn salvation through obedience to it. We are not saved based on keeping laws, but our salvation ought to motivate us to seek to please God. Also, knowing God should make us realize that He knows what's best for us, which suggests that His laws are probably good ideas.
> 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.<
How do you determine if you are truly fully motivated by agape? I suggest that if you are a live human being, you are not purely motivated by agape. Furthermore, thinking that I know best is often a sign of being motivated by self-love rather than agape.
>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.<
You are showing consideration for the ability of fellow drivers to break the law, which seems like a questionable motivation. Keeping up with traffic because you believe that someone would probably run into you otherwise provides better, though by no means certain, justification.
>We note that Jesus violated religious laws out of compassion for fellow humans.<
Note that these were generally the customs that had been added on to the OT laws. Jesus claimed that the religious leaders were misinterpreting the OT laws and replacing them with their own customs, not that one ought not to obey them.
>...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.<
Yes, a perfect Christian _could_ do anything that he wanted because he would want what is right, being perfect. However, even Adam and Eve, though sinless, chose badly, so moral perfection alone is not a guarentee of perfect decisions.
>...they seem to have the same kind of love, commitment and consideration for one another as a Christian married couple. <
The first commandment is to love God, with loving each other second. Unbelieving couples, married or unmarried, may show great love, commitment, and consideration, reflecting genuine concern for the other person. However, what is ultimately best for anyone is to be growing in faith as a Christian. If my first priority for my wife is not that she be growing in love for Jesus, then I am not ultimately seeking her best interests. (Note that I am not claiming that I am perfect in this regard.) Disregarding God's commands because it seems more loving to us is still sin. Again, they are not arbitrary. Being designed for heterosexual marriage (or singleness), people who settle for something else are chosing cheap imitations instead of God's design and also often running high health risks.
>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.<
Contemporary rabbinic views held that a man could divorce his wife for trivial reasons (bad dinner, found someone prettier, etc.) Such an attitude is not loving.
Note that the expectation for Christians is different than for non-Christians. If an unbelieving spouse insists on leaving, that is permitted. Likewise, a new believer may have been divorced; coming to faith provides a new start. In contrast, two practicing believers (not necessarily equivalent to two professing believers), being united in Christ, ought not to be irreconcilably at odds. Thus, the principle that divorce is inappropriate for Christians makes sense.
This is not to say that Christians do not make serious mistakes, nor that forgiveness or seeking to get on with life are inappropriate. Rather, it is to say that Christians ought not to cause grounds for nor desire divorce. In cases of adultery or abuse, seeking a divorce may be an appropriate action (almost certainly in the latter case), but it should be recognized that it is an undesirable situation, and that both of those are inappropriate, unloving behaviors.
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 : Sat Jul 19 2003 - 03:54:12 EDT