Post by Jeff Gerke on Feb 11, 2008 9:19:22 GMT -5
This has been a great discussion, and I thank you all for contributing to it. (I'm not shutting it down--never!--but just appreciating all participants.
I've enjoyed every post. I was thrilled to see a new member (schoolml) join and post his/her first message on this tread. And trying SF for the first time, to boot. Welcome, schoolml!
It seems to me, after all this wonderful iron sharpening iron, to quote myrthman, that it all comes down to Paul's statement: everything is permissible to me but not everything is beneficial (or profitable).
If all things, even sins, are pre-forgiven, then in a sense everything is allowed. Not pleasing to God necessarily, and not necessarily a good idea, but allowed, at least in the sense of not being unforgivable. (We'd have to debate about the unforgivable sin in the age of pre-forgiven sin, but not in this post!)
If everything is allowed, then we have a new situation on our hands. Before, certain things were forbidden. I don't know about you, but when something is forbidden, sometimes that becomes the only thing I want to do. Must...have...that...thing. Take away the verboten sign and suddenly it's boring again. Maybe that's what God's doing here.
In terms of food, I consider nothing forbidden to me. I eat chocolate, pizza, butter...whatever. Because I have learned that I like certain things and, conversely, that I don't like what certain foods do to me. I know I can eat as much as I want--even pig out totally--but I usually don't because I don't like how I feel after I've eaten too much and I don't like how I look when I start putting on pounds. (Yes, even skinny me.)
I wonder if it's the same way with "all things are permissible but not all things are profitable." If nothing is forbidden then nothing has that evil magnetism, and if everything is allowable then we can actually take a step back and say, "Well, what do I want to do?"
In that light, in which all things are put on the table, then maybe we start thinking of things differently. Hmm, let's see, I could kill that person who angered me, but I don't actually want to spend the rest of my life in jail, so...pass. I could indulge that lust, but I don't like how it makes my flesh stronger afterward and then I start wanting it more and being discontented with the rest of my life, so...not this time.
Is this completely whacked?
With my eating, I stabilized into a situation I'm happy with. I eat enough to be satisfied. Sometimes I eat too much, but I always end up compensating by eating a bit less the next couple of days and simply by letting my normal rhythm of eating even everything out. I don't consider anything forbidden, and therefore I'm not ruled by desire for it. But despite having all things allowable for me, I'm not out of control in my eating. Rather, I'm in greater control. I don't overdo because I just don't like what it does to me when I do.
Is that the way things are supposed to be in regard to all things in the world? Even things of the flesh?
I've been helped by everyone's contribution to this thread, but one that has continued to come back to me is rwley's depiction of the way God deals with us when we sin. His love doesn't go away, no matter what we do. He may "take us out" (speaking of "whacked") but even that is in love. That's really rung true to me as I've thought about this. That's what it would look like, it seems to me, for a loving God to deal effectively with someone He loves who gets out of control.
Sin in the age of grace, then? Perhaps it's this: we can do anything we want, so we should do the things that have the results we like. Yes, we're occasionally caught up in the control of the flesh (by our own choosing), but God will work to break us of this (as schoolml was saying), bringing us back to a moment when we can choose again. Hopefully this time we'll choose the path that works out best for all involved (the "beneficial" path). Nothing is forbidden, but only a few things work out best. And if we don't, a loving God will intervene to get us back to that place of choosing again.
Is that it? Have we solved this paradox? Or at least arrived at a working doctrine?
Jeff
I've enjoyed every post. I was thrilled to see a new member (schoolml) join and post his/her first message on this tread. And trying SF for the first time, to boot. Welcome, schoolml!
It seems to me, after all this wonderful iron sharpening iron, to quote myrthman, that it all comes down to Paul's statement: everything is permissible to me but not everything is beneficial (or profitable).
If all things, even sins, are pre-forgiven, then in a sense everything is allowed. Not pleasing to God necessarily, and not necessarily a good idea, but allowed, at least in the sense of not being unforgivable. (We'd have to debate about the unforgivable sin in the age of pre-forgiven sin, but not in this post!)
If everything is allowed, then we have a new situation on our hands. Before, certain things were forbidden. I don't know about you, but when something is forbidden, sometimes that becomes the only thing I want to do. Must...have...that...thing. Take away the verboten sign and suddenly it's boring again. Maybe that's what God's doing here.
In terms of food, I consider nothing forbidden to me. I eat chocolate, pizza, butter...whatever. Because I have learned that I like certain things and, conversely, that I don't like what certain foods do to me. I know I can eat as much as I want--even pig out totally--but I usually don't because I don't like how I feel after I've eaten too much and I don't like how I look when I start putting on pounds. (Yes, even skinny me.)
I wonder if it's the same way with "all things are permissible but not all things are profitable." If nothing is forbidden then nothing has that evil magnetism, and if everything is allowable then we can actually take a step back and say, "Well, what do I want to do?"
In that light, in which all things are put on the table, then maybe we start thinking of things differently. Hmm, let's see, I could kill that person who angered me, but I don't actually want to spend the rest of my life in jail, so...pass. I could indulge that lust, but I don't like how it makes my flesh stronger afterward and then I start wanting it more and being discontented with the rest of my life, so...not this time.
Is this completely whacked?
With my eating, I stabilized into a situation I'm happy with. I eat enough to be satisfied. Sometimes I eat too much, but I always end up compensating by eating a bit less the next couple of days and simply by letting my normal rhythm of eating even everything out. I don't consider anything forbidden, and therefore I'm not ruled by desire for it. But despite having all things allowable for me, I'm not out of control in my eating. Rather, I'm in greater control. I don't overdo because I just don't like what it does to me when I do.
Is that the way things are supposed to be in regard to all things in the world? Even things of the flesh?
I've been helped by everyone's contribution to this thread, but one that has continued to come back to me is rwley's depiction of the way God deals with us when we sin. His love doesn't go away, no matter what we do. He may "take us out" (speaking of "whacked") but even that is in love. That's really rung true to me as I've thought about this. That's what it would look like, it seems to me, for a loving God to deal effectively with someone He loves who gets out of control.
Sin in the age of grace, then? Perhaps it's this: we can do anything we want, so we should do the things that have the results we like. Yes, we're occasionally caught up in the control of the flesh (by our own choosing), but God will work to break us of this (as schoolml was saying), bringing us back to a moment when we can choose again. Hopefully this time we'll choose the path that works out best for all involved (the "beneficial" path). Nothing is forbidden, but only a few things work out best. And if we don't, a loving God will intervene to get us back to that place of choosing again.
Is that it? Have we solved this paradox? Or at least arrived at a working doctrine?
Jeff