From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 07:39:15 EDT
The law has two basic functions:
1) It maintains order in the world (civil use).
2) It makes people aware of their sin (theological use).
Those who are justified in Christ are free from the law (Rom.10:4). But Christians
in this life are still sinners (as well as saints!) & thus always need to hear the
law in its 2d use. They also live in the world with others, including non-Christians,
& for the sake of their neighbors are subject to the law in its 1st use.
I think the question at issue here is whether or not the law has a "3d use" as a
guide for the Christian life. The Reformed tradion has generally said "Yes." The
Lutheran tradition has been somewhat ambiguous about this but I think most consistently
says "No." This does _not_ mean that Christians are not subject to the law at all, but
simply that it functions for them in the 2 ways noted above, & that there is no
distinctively Christian use of the law. To put it another way, apart from use #1 the
law always has a negative function - "the law always accuses."
Don Winterstein wrote:
............................
> 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
>
>
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 19 2003 - 07:38:31 EDT