Is there any act that is amoral ?

How can one act without a motive ? What human act does not invollve the will ?

Even if I willfully try to do something that is morally neutral I am acting morally.

Romans 7 defines two laws. The law of the flesh, and the law of the Spirit.

God said, he that is not for me, is against me.

Do all things unto the glory of God.

Nothing can be done in a morally neutral way.

Prove me wrong.

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by Saiph]

__________________
Misery induces despair, pride induces presumption. The Incarnation shows man the
greatness of his misery by the greatness of the remedy which he required.
~ Pascal, Pensees 526

No thanks.

__________________
Chris


A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

Visit My Website Here

Christopher Blum
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Burlington, KY

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I agree Mark, but you misunderstand Rev Schwertley. As is clear from the statement in his paper on the RPW he does not mean that an act may be done from a neutral motive he simply mean there are many acts that outwardly are neither sinful nor pious. Such as eating ice cream, there is nothing sinful in itself with eating ice cream thus it is adiaphora however the end which we have in eating it is always either moral or immoral.

__________________
*Peter Gray* Elkins Park RPCNA

"Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. " Mk 9:24
"The greatest thing we can desire, next to the glory of God, is our own salvation; and the sweetest thing we can desire is the assurance of our salvation. In this life we cannot get higher than to be assured of that which in the next life is to be enjoyed. All saints shall enjoy a heaven when they leave this earth; some saints enjoy a heaven while they are here on earth." Joseph Caryl

For clarification, Mark, would you agree that the theoretical, a priori act of eating ice cream is amoral in and of itself, but that as soon as it becomes an actual event or instance of doing so, it then becomes either moral or immoral?

So where does God say this ?

We are called to not judge our brethren when it comes to appearances, and grant them Christian liberty, case in point, the cigar thread.

The idea I have is that there seem to be many things that are circumstances and not elements, and those circumstances are said to be adiaphora. But, as you and I know, the circumstances can violate an explicit command of God, that is more abstract.

So why is there a distinction at all ?

Whatever is forbidden in public worship, is also forbidden in private worship.

When Christ said true worshippers worship in Spirit and truth, do both of those refer to element, and not circumstance ? Or do they refer to element AND circumstance ? Or one against the other ?

I just want to understand. And everyone I have read on both sides is confusing. Williamson, Schlissel, etc . . .

They all have internal contradictions.

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by Saiph]

In a sense, I suppose so. But since no act remains theoretical, all acts can be judged within the motive of the will.

Also, we know that lusting after ice creaam in our hearts is the same thing as ice cream idolatry right ? ? :bigsmile:

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by Saiph]

Hmm. You've got me thinking, Mark.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

Yeah...stop that!

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

Adiaphora, in this case, can mean either indifference or not prohibited. The thing that it is an adjective of makes for the defintion that applies. So in the sense that nothing is indifferent morally, such as actions from the heart, or that some things fall into a neutral category, such as eating ice cream, or that some things fall into neutral territory such as beliefs that can be neither verified nor excluded, these things make for what the term means. In part I can agree with you, Mark, because I know what brought this to the fore and I see your point; but it is still a misapplication, I think. Its appears to me to be a confusing of the term.

But....., I'm still thinking.

Actually, I might even disagree with this.

A theoretical, a priori act as a concept, cannot even be considered outside of the human discursive noetic process right ? Unless God is immediately thinking of it, but that does not matter.

The point is, I cannot even think of a single word like "tree" without the possibility of that meaning and idea being tainted by the guilt of Adam. We need the Holy Spirit to even think rightly about the world.

Otherwise we might be formulating a kind of intelectual Pelagianism right ? ?

JohnV,

My main argument is that nothing is neutral, or in a neutral category, since God uses everything for His own glory, evil and good. Note, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not good, evil and all those things in between.


Ultimately, by saying whatever God has NOT commanded is also forbidden, the RPW violates the law of God, by adding to His words.

So, with every action and motive, we should find support in either what He commands, or by what He forbids. The WCF/larger catechism does this by inference when it explains the decalogue.

(Paul Manata could help me out on this one)

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]

Man can not declare something to be sin which God has not, for there is one lawgiver (Jas 4:12), yet may make something sin which God has not per se by using it improperly or to an evil end.

I dont really know what you're getting at here but I'm going to say that if something violates an explicit command it is not circumstantial.


I agree.

I think a circumstance of worship is necessarily something a-spiritual about something spiritual and nonpropositional but functional about truth. So to take the given example, in the NT it doesnt matter what direction you pray in, you're not more spiritual praying toward Jerusalem and you're not worshipping falsely if you don't. The direction you pray towards does not have spiritual significance and it can not be classified true or false.

Let's work through them.

I believe part 1.
Part 2, needs some serious explanation.



I said:
Whatever is forbidden in public worship, is also forbidden in private worship.


You said:
I agree.


So, an EP believer that worships on Sundays with only psalms, is committing grave sin if they listen to ANY other music in their private life ? ?

Because, ALL music is worship in my definition. It is written in praise of something, someone, world view, etc. . .

Mark, I agree that all acts, and thoughts, are moral and not neutral.

When it comes to ice cream, I take Deut 12:15 as my proof-text and try to indulge my lust to the glory of God:

Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart.



Vic

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

1Co 8:8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

This verse proves that certain acts are outwardly neutral. One can surely look to motives and find sin, but food is neither sinful, nor righteous.

__________________
Jeff Bartel
Mechanical Engineer
Member - Trinity Reformed Church - RPCNA

"To believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism" (The Reformation in England (London, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 98)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Why did you feel it necessary to modify the idea of neutral with outwardly ? ?

Because, even food is contingent.

No thing exists in and of itself. Only God is self existent. All created objects and beings are contingent. Therefore subject to corruption. All creation is subject to vanity, and awaiting redemption.

If God declared all things "good" at creation, and now it is subject to vanity, is it really neutral ? God sanctifies it in us and through our faith does He not ?? By thanksgiving ?

The choicest cut of meat may have bacteria. And all things left to their natural state will rot and decay. So, how can you call it neutral, while entropy prevails ?

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]

If you say that meat is sinful because it decays, then you have a different definition of sin than I do!

Sin is any want of conformity to, or transgression of the law of God.

I would like to see my t-bone do that!

OK, after getting some sleep and mulling this over, then seeing this post, here's my gut reaction. ( Can't use my head just yet, too many cobwebs yet )

First: its not adiaphora that you are talking about, then. For if that were so, then not only would it be impossible that man could not sin, but it would also be impossible that Christ made man righteous by taking on manhood, of this creation, of the womb of Mary, and be an acceptable sacrifice for the propitiation of man.

Second: you are using the RPW to refute the RPW, not by internal contradiction, but imposing the same rule you want to over-rule. Like someone using reason to deny reason, and thinking he's being consistent.

Third: you may not see it, but you're ending up right at the point you are refuting. If you analyze your end position, and use the commonly accepted terms to describe them, then you're talking about a RPW, and imposition of not going beyond the Word, and that some things are indifferent to that, and that our sinful attempts at moral motions are never amoral, but immoral unless sanctified in Christ. That is no different than what EP-ers hold to, what RPW-ers hold to, and what theonomic Doctrines of Grace-ers ( if you will ) hold to. You're just trying to change the terminology, that's all.

Did I use the word sinful ? Sorry if I did. But it is not morally neutral. It may be potentially good, or evil.

Interesting thought here. God called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "good" at creation.

Because it was His knowledge, and His prerogative to know. Adam usurped that by eating. So we all fell by eating, and you are arguing that food is neutral . . just a funny observation. I do not know if it is valid.

Would you care to share how something can be not morally neutral yet not sinful or righteous?

You've got three options for the t-bone as far as I see it:

1) Sinful
2) Neutral
3) Righteous

JohnV,

How ? Man was not created morally neutral, he was created good, and has sought out many devices as good King Solomon said. . . . And Christ's human nature was not fallen. He was born of Mary not Adam. The seed was God's. Sin is passed through Adam.

On point 2, how am I using the same rule. First, it was probably because I misrepresented the RPW to begin with. WHich I retracted in this post or the other one . . .

It actually never says "whatever is not commanded is forbidden". I got that from Schlissel.

And 3, I do not get it. I am saying the biblical RPW is the law of liberty. And God's command need not be explicit to allow things like Hymns or musical instruments.

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]

How about corrupt, or incorrupt.
Or good or evil.

Sinful implies will. A will bent towards disobedience to God's law.

Your point is that matter is neither good or evil. Only human motives use it to those ends ? ?

I wonder what corruption and vanity implies about nature then ? ?

(keep in mind, I am not advocating gnosticism either. matter=evil, spirit=good. I am trying to figure out how far total depravity goes. Like when the whole creation groans for redemption)

(I emailed Paul Manata to ask his opinion. He knows way more about philosophy than I do. I might have just entered some creepy pseudo-gnostic realm with my idea about matter)



[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]