Re: Sin?

From: Thomas D. Pearson (pearson@panam.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 14:19:54 EDT

  • Next message: Josh Bembenek: "Re: Sin?"

    Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
    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.

    >From a strictly ethical perspective, Don, this would be a difficult
    >position to sustain, since it doesn't provide any normative criteria
    >for determining exactly what "intrinsically sinful acts" might be.

    You are right to say that love, even agape love, is a motivator of
    action; and as such, it has no normative content -- love alone cannot
    tell us what is a good action in a given circumstance. That leaves
    us with the other part of your formula, the "sanctified Christian."
    But what is the standard by which we establish what counts as a
    "sanctified Christian"? For example, I know two women, both of whom
    I would consider "sanctified Christians motivated by agape," who have
    had abortions. According to your scenario, it looks like the very
    fact that these actions were carried out by persons who can be
    considered "sanctified Christians motivated by agape" renders their
    behavior (with respect to the abortions) morally justified. But this
    will ultimately mean that *any* action promulgated by a "sanctified
    Christian motivated by agape" will be morally justified. Given your
    proposal, there is no other criteria by which to determine what is
    morally acceptable and what is an "intri!
      nsically sinful act."

    There is another problem as well, I think: the problem of sin. Who
    among us functions as a "sanctified Christian motivated by agape" on
    a consistent basis? Isn't it just as likely that "sanctified
    Christians motivated by agape" will commit moral trangressions as do
    the unregenerate? If that's true, how can we figure out when we're
    glimpsing moral rectitude in the conduct of others, and when we're
    not?

    I'll tell you what I do like about your proposal, Don -- it's
    fundamentally Aristotelian. It seeks to find a moral standard in the
    actions of the person who possesses identifiably virtuous character,
    rather than in a set of objective rules. That's Aristotelian; it's
    also Pauline, so far as I can tell. But in both cases, you have to
    identify what constitutes genuine moral character -- the basic
    criteria for determining an ethical action -- and that's what's
    missing from your reference to the "sanctified Christian motivated by
    agape."

    Tom Pearson
    __________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________

    Thomas D. Pearson
    Department of History & Philosophy
    The University of Texas-Pan American
    Edinburg, Texas
    e-mail: pearson@panam.edu



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 21:07:54 EDT