| Note 365.3
-ed_,
Thank you for your remarks. As is often the case, however, they do provoke
even more questions.
> The vision absolutely does have broader application then
>just jewish dietary laws. But I think any broader application then
>what is presented in the Bible (ie. the gospel was for ALL men not just
>the jews) would be stretching it.
For what reason(s) do you take this position?
> I don't believe you can use it
>as a platform for justifying what the Bible clearly states is sin
>but it is definately an example of Gods acceptance of anyone who REPENTS.
Would it be more credible to use Peter's vision as a platform for justifying
a life lived in accordance with the Spirit and teachings of Christ Jesus, but
which is out of synchronization with much of the Law as prescribed in the
Old Testament?
"Do not consider anything unclean that God has declared clean." This to me
is a very interesting statement. How do we know all that God has declared to
be clean? How do we know what God declared clean had been fully revealed before
the canon was closed? In other words, how do we know that canonization wasn't
premature?
I noticed your emphasis on the word REPENTS. Do you mean God accepts
anyone who "has a change of heart?" a "re-thinking?" a "turning to God?"
a "metanoia"? Or could you possibly mean God accepts anyone who "changes
or swears off their sinful ways?" If the latter, would you share with us
how you arrived at your understanding of what it means to repent?
Peace,
Richard
|
| I've always been taught that to Repent, one needs to not only feel
sorrow or contrition for a current 'way of life', but also be determined
to make a change so that one does not continue the offense. Therefore,
Repentance contains both an admittance that what was done (or not done)
was a sin in God's sight, and also a firm resolve to sin no more.
Admitting to the sin and even feeling sorry for it yet not deciding to
made an effort to turn from future temptations is not an act of
repentance.
Often as Christians we struggle with our sins - committing them,
truely repenting of them, and then falling into them again. What is
important is to persevere in repenting and to call Christ into the
battle so that Satan will flee and tempt us no more!
Peace,
Mary
|
| Hi, Richard, thanks for the tickle in 91.*.
After re-reading this note and the replies, I'm strongly reminded of a line
from a book, _The Once and Future King_ by E. H. White (I think) that goes
something like this:
"Everything not prohibited is mandatory.
Everything not mandatory is prohibited."
As I recall from old, vague memories, the young Arthur (as in Camelot and all
that) has been turned into an ant by his magician/teacher Merlin (no
rat-holes, please .-) in order to learn lessons about Life. The above two
rules dictate how ants are to live their lives. "Don't think, just do what
you're told, and don't do what you're not told..."
In a similar vein, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who was vehemently
opposed to the creation of the Bill of Rights. His reasoning was that if one
was too specific in spelling out what rights a person has, then there was a
good chance that people would work to limit a person's right to what was
specifically spelled out and no more. Instead of being liberated, people
would be enslaved by the letter of the law.
Legal documents and such are usually though of as being very clear and
precise, but for them to be of any use over time, there are many fuzzy areas
subject to interpretation.
For example, treason has been explicitly spelled out as to what constitutes
it and what the penalties are, yet what is meant by "cruel and unusual
punishment"? That was purposely left vague, so that it might be interpreted
by a changing society.
I suppose there are circumstances where strict obedience to the letter of the
law is necessary. The military, for example. While I have certain
reservations about it, I can see the necessity for having strict rules about
what is permissible and what isn't, and that what is is mandatory and what
isn't is forbidden.
However, as regards Christianity, Christ Jesus came to free us of the Law in a
profound and transcending way.
The Fall in the Garden of Eden gave us the knowledge of Good and Evil. I have
occasionally heard that fall described as a fall *up*. We are more in the
image of God because of that, yet we ignore or abuse that knowledge.
In God's evolving covenant with us we were given the Law. "Do this, don't do
that." It is very easy to become responsible soley to the Law. Who has not
heard of someone who followed procedure to the letter, while having no regard
for the people they were dealing with? Legally they might have been clean as
a whistle, but did they do the right thing?
Jesus freed us from the bondage of the Law, yet gave no license for anarchy.
The Law is written in our hearts. We have the knowledge of Good and Evil,
even if it was stolen from the Garden. That theft might be some way redeemed
by our remembering in Whose image we are created and living our lives
accordingly. "Love others as I have loved you."
It's much more difficult than living by the written Law. Mistakes will be
made, you will find yourself in new and uncharted territories that the written
Law might not even cover.� Jesus gave us new freedom, and the responsibility
that goes with it. He also gave us the support we need whenever we are
willing to accept it.
Peace,
Jim
� I'm reminded of the controversy that arose in certain areas when space
flight was new. There was quite a debate in some Jewish circles concerning
the definition of sundown when one was orbiting the Earth and the problem
of exactly when one was to pray.
|