tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149754204668875532.post425040886135320353..comments2023-05-13T05:59:51.004-06:00Comments on with arms wide open: [sin as exclusion]rob ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06074711016726877092noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149754204668875532.post-15142723099205740032012-01-09T13:23:15.022-07:002012-01-09T13:23:15.022-07:00Thanks for the clarification. That helps.
AlexThanks for the clarification. That helps.<br /><br />AlexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149754204668875532.post-50063300410176633972012-01-09T12:52:48.011-07:002012-01-09T12:52:48.011-07:00Hi Alex:
I think that Volf would agree with you t...Hi Alex:<br /><br />I think that Volf would agree with you that Biblically, there is a difference between "behaviours that are sinful, and those behaviours/traits that we think of as sinful." Here, however, his focus is on those who think of themselves as "not sinners," and who at the same time label others as sinners -- particularly those who were "outcasts, people who practiced despised trades, Gentiles and Samaritans, those who failed to keep the Law as interpreted by a particular sect." My guess is this was very overt in Jesus' day, but is more subtle today. So the issue is both the excluding others by labelling them as sinners (when the person doing the excluding is also a sinner), and using the label "sinners" to exclude groups of people who were at the margins.<br /><br />Volf emphasizes Jesus is not just saying "oh, everyone is included and everything is okay", but that as well as crashing down these false boundaries, Jesus also goes ahead and identifies sin as sin, brings grace, demands repentance, and offers forgiveness.<br /><br />Does that answer what you were asking?<br /><br />robrob ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06074711016726877092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149754204668875532.post-81963744673061459502012-01-07T06:04:00.308-07:002012-01-07T06:04:00.308-07:00Rob,
Could you provide me a bit more context here...Rob,<br /><br />Could you provide me a bit more context here? I notice the following in the exert:<br /><br />the “condescending” offer of forgiveness (Mark 1:15; 2:15-17). The mission of Jesus consisted not simply in re-naming the behavior that was falsely labeled “sinful”<br /><br />(I realize that I have taken two half-sentences, but I don't think that doing so compromises the message.) First, there is the comment that Jesus provides Forgiveness and then the comment that the behaviours were falsely labeled "sinful". I don't understand. There were times that Jesus offered/gave forgiveness and at those times the person was deemed to have done something wrong (eg. adultery). Other times he talked to those falsely labeled "sinful" (Gentiles, Samaritans). The quote above seems to say that Jesus forgave the person and then said that the behaviour was NOT sinful - adultery? theft? No, Jesus gave a higher standard for what is considered sin, but forgave those that fell short when they came to Him. But I can't remember a single time that he said that such behaviour was NOT sinful. Can you share any such situations.<br /><br />The closest I can think of is Zacchias, but there Zacchias (deemed 'unclean' as a tax collector) was perhaps told that his work as a tax collector was not inherently sinful, but those times that he took more than he was supposed to was - and he agreed to pay back those people. So that still does not quite fit what Miroslav Volf is saying.<br /><br />Any other thoughts?<br /><br />I guess for me there IS a difference between the behaviours that are sinful, and those behaviours/traits that we think of as sinful. Miroslav's comment seems to lump them both together, but my understanding of Jesus and the gospel is that they were viewed very separately.<br /><br />AlexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com