Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)

David:

Makes sense to me. If the bully were an armed gang that was threatening
a host (not impossible) and there was not State or the State was
inadequate (e.g., in some inner city areas), I would think Scripture and
common sense would support the organization of a defensive organization,
and perhaps, if necessary, offensive. War is often called for in a
sinful world for the love of others.

bill

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, David Clounch
wrote:

> [quote]
> Following case law provided in Exodus, I imagine the bully would first be
> required
> to replace the bike with an bike of equivalent value. As for the damage done
> to the
> boy, the question would probably be to consider what was lost as a result of
> having
> been beat-up. Surely, the boy (or his parents) would be required to pay any
> doctor
> bills. More might be required, but you probably get the idea. By no means,
> however,
> would the boy be "justified" in beating up or having beat up the bully.
> [unquote]
>
> Not to disagree, but should we consider the case of Nehemiah during the
> restoration project where he armed the workers building the wall? With the
> blessings of the government (ruler of Persia) they basically took up arms
> against the "bully" who was trying to disrupt their project. What they
> didn't do was take revenge just for the sake of revenge.
>
> Maybe its apples and oranges though.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave C
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:26 PM, wjp <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:
>
>> Bernie:
>>
>> OK. I'll try this.
>>
>> First, the OT reference is to the civil law, the reference Christ's make to
>> is
>> not the civil law but that moral law before God.
>>
>> The civil law may vary from community to community, although it ought to
>> follow
>> the principles of the Ten Commandments. Civil might be viewed as case law
>> for
>> the Ten Commandments, and this is just how Exodus lays it out.
>>
>> For the sake of this conversation, let us regard the "eye for an eye" as a
>> principle
>> of the civil law.
>>
>> I have no idea how you came about applying this principle in the way that
>> you did.
>> I have to presume you've read Exodus.
>>
>> The principle of "eye for an eye" refers to the principle of restoration,
>> and that
>> restoration cannot be demanded any greater than what needs restoring. In
>> the ideal,
>> the notion would be to restore, as much as is possible, the situation to
>> what it was
>> before.
>>
>> Following case law provided in Exodus, I imagine the bully would first be
>> required
>> to replace the bike with an bike of equivalent value. As for the damage
>> done to the
>> boy, the question would probably be to consider what was lost as a result
>> of having
>> been beat-up. Surely, the boy (or his parents) would be required to pay
>> any doctor
>> bills. More might be required, but you probably get the idea. By no
>> means, however,
>> would the boy be "justified" in beating up or having beat up the bully.
>>
>> I don't think the situation is any different for the Christian or the NT.
>> Following
>> Romans, the state has the authority to wield the sword. All that entails
>> is that the
>> state (and not the boy or even his parents) would or perhaps even should be
>> involved
>> in the restoration, i.e., in the use of the law to curb the activities of
>> the lawless
>> and to maintain civil order.
>>
>> It ought to be clear that there is a distinction between our obligations
>> before God
>> (i.e., the Moral Code) and our obligations before man in a sinful world.
>> In a sinful world violence must be used often to subdue evil, even killing.
>> So the civil code permits the existence of soldiers and police.
>> The question has to do with the motivation of the act.
>> If we act in violence to protect ourselves, we sin.
>> If we act in violence to protect another, we do not sin.
>>
>> This sometimes sounds too easily said to me.
>> The issue for me is always existential and not abstract.
>> I, as a sinner, in a sinful world will sin necessarily.
>> I will violate God's perfect law of Love. Yet that does not free me from
>> being
>> blameless. I must, nonetheless, try to act according to that perfect law.
>> And in my trying to do so, even doing the best I can, as a sinner in a
>> sinful
>> world, I will sin.
>> The State or Community is instituted to try to make the best of it in this
>> sinful world. So Judges, police, and soldiers act out of their callings
>> or offices in this world for the establishment of good, as we can have it.
>> But we would not need police, soldiers, and judges were the world sinless.
>>
>> Apparently, such a picture bothers some Christians.
>> Not me.
>> I never can outgrow my desperate need for a Savior.
>> I have no problem believing that I cannot keep God's perfect law
>> in this sinful world. It's why this world is a perfect one for us and
>> Salvation.
>>
>> bill
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:57:07 -0500, Dave Wallace <
>> wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Pete-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suppose a Christian boy is beat-up at school and his bike is destroyed
>>>> by a bully. He says he wants to get even with the kid- eye for eye. He
>>>> plans to destroy the other guys bike as well as hurt him physically.
>>>> His Christian parents tell him it is wrong, per Jesus’ teaching, to
>>>> pay back evil for evil. The boy does it anyway. Is that a sin? Is it
>>>> immoral? You will likely say ‘yes’ I’m guessing.
>>>>
>>>> Now re-work the same scenario with a Jewish family. Since they are
>>>> following the OT, is it s sin? I can’t guess what you’d say. If yes,
>>>> they are being held to an account above that which they have accepted
>>>> from God in the OT. If you say no, then apparently there are different
>>>> levels of morality from the same God?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe your answer will be that people are only accountable for what
>>>> they know, and reject. It just seems strange to me that one can do
>>>> ‘evil for evil’ as a command from God (OT) while another says that
>>> the
>>>> practice of ‘evil for evil’ is evil (NT). Christians and Jews have
>>> the
>>>> same God but different moral directions.
>>>>
>>>> So can you clarify using these two specific examples? Is the boy from
>>>> the Christian family sinning because they have a higher standard,
>>>> whereas the Jewish boy is not sinning?
>>>>
>>>> …Bernie
>>>>
>>> Bernie
>>>
>>> Even in the fundy church of my youth I never remember the old testament
>>> law of the kind you are quoting as being what you must do when a wrong
>>> is committed. Instead it is the maximum one can extract. That is the
>>> point or maybe better the catch in Shakespere's Merchant of Venice. If
>>> you did not study it in school a good summary is at:
>>> http://www.about-shakespeare.com/merchant_of_venice.php
>>>
>>> In terms of you example of the Jewish boy. If it or its equivalent
>>> occurred prior to Christ and the boy not only trashed the bullies bike
>>> but also had him beaten up, then he broke the commandment. If he only
>>> trashed the bike then there was no breaking of the commandment but
>>> possibly there was still sin involved, I don't know. If the same
>>> occurred in the present age, I don't know what to say and leave that to
>>> the good Lord.
>>>
>>> Dave W
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 3 08:38:05 2009