Thank you for this post. I think this kind of a discussion allows for a lot of fruit to be reaped! With that said, I would like to offer some fraternal pushback. You seem to pit the privation theory of evil against Calvinistic thought in such a way that the two are mutually exclusive. I do not want to discount your experiences as a Calvinist, but I do not think that characterization meshes well with what many heavyweights of the Reformed tradition say on this issue. For example, Calvin himself explicitly assents to Augustine's privation theory of evil which is no different than what you are positing as far as I can tell (page 169 of "Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God"). Francis Turretin, who wrote the textbook that Reformed seminaries used for centuries holds to the same understanding. You can track down his thoughts in the 9th topic of his Elenctic Theology, first chapter. I can send you the relevant passages if you are interested. The last example I would put forward (with two unashamedly lengthy quotes) is the Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck.
He writes,
"Aside from the good substratum by which sin is sustained and to
which it clings, it can therefore never be defined in any way other than as
“privation of the good.” One must remember, however, that in using this
language we are speaking abstractly and metaphysically about sin. And
from that viewpoint, it has no existence, is no substance, but a
nothingness, nothing positive, but only something privative. Anyone who
wanted to conceive it differently would thereby make evil independent and
eternal in a Manichean sense and posit a supreme evil over against a
supreme good. The above objection raised against defining sin as
privation, accordingly, actually rests on misunderstanding. Abstractly and
metaphysically, sin is privation and may not, nor can from a Christian
position, be viewed in any other way." vol. 3 p. 140 of Reformed Dogmatics.
Elsewhere, and precisely in agreement to the point you make in your article, he writes,
"Thus, although sin in virtue of its own nature strives toward
nonbeing, it nonetheless has no power over being itself. It cannot create;
neither can it destroy. Accordingly, neither the essential character of the
angels, nor that of humans, nor that of nature, has been changed as a result
of sin. Essentially they are the same creatures before and after the fall,
with the same substance, the same capacities, the same powers. Both
before and after the fall, humans have a soul and a body, intellect and will,
feelings and passions. What has changed is not the substance, the matter,
but the form in which these show themselves, the direction in which they
function. With the same power of love with which human beings
originally loved God, they now love the creature. The same intellect with
which in the past they sought the things above now frequently, with
admirable acuteness and profundity, makes them hold falsehood to be
truth. With the same freedom with which they formerly served God, they
now serve the world. Substantially, sin has neither removed anything from
humanity nor introduced anything into it. It is the same human person, but
now walking, not toward God but away from him, to destruction. “Sin is
not some positive essence but a defect, a corruptive tendency; that is, a
force that contaminates mode, species, and order in the created will.” vol. 3 p. 139
So, I do not think that Calvinism (at least the variety that is historically rooted) is really incompatible with what you have said in this article. Total Depravity can be understood as a pervasive privation of good i.e. no part of the unnatural person possesses the Good in fullness. Rather, every part is lacking such that it functions defectively. The main difference I see is that the Reformed, like Bavinck hold that sin involves an ethical relation in addition to its ontological privation aspect. So, to frame it in the terms you put forward, ontologically/metaphysically speaking, the Reformed would have no issues saying humans are good. However, they would say that ethically speaking, they are not. In my view, the East has traditionally been weak on acknowledging an ethical reality and boil everything down to ontology and metaphysics (I would not say I am caricaturing since this was the precise point I read an Orthodox theologian makes on differences between East and West. You can find the article titled "Being Saved - The Ontological Approach" on AncientFaith.com). I don't accept this either/or; I think there is a legitimate both/and.
If you read this far, I appreciate your endurance and look forward to your additional thoughts/posts!
Very familiar with Bavinck and I think what he does is seeks some major consistency within a reformed Calvinistic framework. I'll just say two things :
1. There's easier, more consistent ways of doing it.
2. If you read Calvin in other more modern reformed folk, they tend towards that Manichaen / dualistic framework.
So, while I think you can hold a reformed view, I think there's lots of extra work to be done to keep it internally consistent.
Let me explain.
If you said to any reformed person you know today :
"Humanity is essentially the same, by nature, before and after the fall" ( a la bavinck ) you'd be met with tons of opposition.
Thanks for the response! I agree that most modern Calvinists would activate “assimilate or die” mode if I used that Bavinck quote in their presence 😂. However, I think that’s due to an insufficient framework being taught in popular works. Turretin makes equivalent distinctions to what Bavinck makes so I’m not sure Bavinck is unique on this issue. I think the issue is greatly helped and any real tensions in Reformed theology are resolved when you bring that ontological and ethical distinction to bear. That’s not even a Reformed innovation, they inherited it from Lombard and Aquinas. I guess I don’t see the tensions as clearly as you do and haven’t quite detected a sense of mental gymnastics needed to resolve it. When I see excess in contemporary Calvinism (which you are rightly pointing out) my instincts are to reform it rather than break from it. And in that pursuit, I’ve found that the OG Calvinists already have the conceptual tools necessary to do it, they’ve just been lost in the Ides of Modernity.
and while i do think you're right, that there's the conceptual tools available, i think those only exist in the system. but that's a long story for another post.
Been waiting for this one! Love your thoughts and can’t wait to hear more.
So you’d say that, because sin is the absence of something Good (or True or Beautiful), we abuse our free will by grasping at things that meet those “desires” quickly rather than through God. For example, lust isn’t a “thing” its the absence or perversion of seeking love, intimacy, and physical touch -- aka it’s easier to succumb to “cheap intimacy” (lust) rather than the correct intimacy of love and desire (Godly marriage). Am I understanding this right?
Beauty, for example, finds its source in God - and God has designed humans to enjoy and participate in Beauty in a variety of ways, sex being one of them. He sets out the parameters for what the FULL enjoyment of that is, and when we distort it, or use His Good gifts in our own way, we sin. We lust.
Lust doesn't exist like Beauty does. Beauty, and every beautiful thing, finds its source in God. Lust, for example, is a perversion of beauty in some capacity.
I too have departed the Calvinist camp and landed home in Lutheranism- but this is where I actually find the Calvinists to be most accurate. The texts are clear (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13) that we were essentially “dead in sin.” Taken at face value I think we have to believe it- in regards to spiritual matters God has to act first & it is not a matter of our good will. Article II of the Augsburg Confession expresses this. At the same time I would say Christ has died for all though, that He loves all and wants all to come into the fold. God acts through means of grace so that we can respond via those (baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc.).
My question though would have to be then where do you land now denominationally? With this view & others I’ve seen you express it seems like you don’t neatly fit into any major expression of Christianity…. Maybe closer to some than others- but not fully committed to one camp.
I think God still acts first - and we're going to get into the details of all that - anything but that idea leads, either slowly or quickly, into Pelagianism.
The view in this post is broadly Eastern Orthodox - if you wanted to pin it down - with a few other ideas tossed in. Not because I dont want to fit into a camp, but because I think, often, those rigid lines stop us from having real conversation in places that matter.
this makes me think of the wendell berry quote--“there are no unsacred places;/there are only sacred places/and desecrated places.” there are only sacred places, and places where the absence of the sacred thing is felt most deeply.
I really appreciate how you chose to side away from the 'using a single/couple verse/argument' approach that nowadays so often invades apologetic discourse.
Hey, I know I’m a bit late to the party but thank you for such a thought provoking question! I thought your point on sin being specifically non substantive was particularly interesting. I don’t think I’ve ever considered it to be honest. On that line of thinking though, how do you think about how sin affects nature? What causes death and decay? Would you say that God’s presence no longer dwells on earth as it did in Eden and that lack of presence causes it?
The question is HOW does sin affect nature - it can't do it in a sort of in and on because it isn't substantive. So the results of sin bring death. Which is essentially leaving the life of God
How do you think free will and love work together? Part of my issue with determinism is that it seems to eliminate the ability to love. What I mean is: I think love is willing the good of the other, regardless of cost to self. It’s a sacrifice. Worship is love aimed at the highest good (God, hopefully), so also a sacrifice. If I cannot choose God (assuming He moves first and intensely pursues us) then how can I love God? Sacrifice cannot exist without will. If we take away free will, I’m just left with feelings as a barometer for faith. This led me to believe we are made in God’s image, with free will, and He pursues us endlessly, calling us to respond to Him in Christ.
Yeah I think free will is a must. A full and legitimate free will, not the word games of the determinists or compatibilists. Essentially, my view is that we grow in freedom as we Love God and neighbour more and more.
This is an excellent post that has really given some language and understanding to the ache and confusion that I have when it comes to Calvinism.
I have attended a reformed church that is Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) for almost all of my life and while I love this church dearly and the people in it, I have struggled significantly with the concepts of TULIP and Calvinism, and the lack of nuanced thinking in regards to these concepts.
I think you very wisely point out that it is no walk in the park to just get up and leave this type of theological framework, especially if you have been immersed in it for years and it is the lens through which you view your relationship with God and the world.
Being able to read through this post though and digesting the concept of sin as being a privation instead of an actual substance and my natural state of being, has been incredibly encouraging and eye opening.
Appreciate the dialogue and conversation, and greatly looking forward to part 2!
I am also a recovering Calvinist, so this is so helpful to think about in a new way!
I really like your emphasis on our inherent value as humans simply because God made us.
I feel like this opens up a can of worms into so many topics!! I won’t post all my questions, but I hope you touch on identity next! I’m having trouble distinguishing identity from our desire/ choosing to sin. Excited to see what you have to share next.
And a question: what would justification mean from this view? From my understanding it is him taking my sin and giving me his righteousness. If I am already good why does he give me a new name? I hope that makes sense!!
That is such a good question - we still need justification ( we will get into this ) - for the sins we actually commit. The atonement, in my view, is primarily one of Christ's Victory and Recapitulation - that Jesus succeeds where Adam failed. This means, Jesus is victorious of the dark powers that enslave us and Death that looms over us ( as well as setting us free - salvation and the Holy Spirit still make us new creations ).
This whole framework you laid out was super helpful. I grew up Calvinist, but as I’ve been reading I have noticed it’s inconsistencies. My one question is how you understand Paul’s language in Romans. He seems to be talking about sin as substance there, especially Romans 7. Just trying to understand, not at all picking a fight.
I’m in the same camp as you, but like you, I may be able to defend my ideas theologically, i have a hard time interpreting Calvinistic proof text in a non Calvinistic way.
For example, you say something along the lines of “how can you blame someone for sinning if God commanded it”.
I agree. But I immediately hear my Calvinist buddy say, “see you just don’t want to accept the Scriptures because Paul already addressed this with Romans 9”
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
Your buddy has made a logical fallacy, begging the question / assuming the conclusion. He has assumed his worldview / interpretation is correct and then saying "see, the text says that."
but there have been people, the majority of people for the majority of church history, who have differed - I'm not appealing to their authority or to tradition - but just to say, there are other views.
Do you think there is any form of "bondage to sin" intrinsic in your refined understanding of sin as the "privation of the Good"? I'm thinking specifically in the context of Romans 5-8.
I think, especially from Paul's description of sin in Rom. 5-8, that sin can be described as a "controlling force," or something that keeps humanity from living in the Good (also what some biblical scholars have expressed as faithfulness). However, I am also a proponent of how some of the Jewish scholars describe sin, seeing it more as an "evil inclination" more so than something that becomes the primary marker to identify humans (as the Reformed position claims in their expression of original sin).
I think the two understandings above are not mutually exclusive and that there can be a sense of bondage to "sin" intrinsic within the definition of sin as an "evil inclination." I also think this definition aligns more with how you understand sin as a "privation of the Good." Although, I do recognize that describing sin as an "evil inclination" can easily be understood in more Reformed terms.
What do you do with ideas like the old man, and the flesh? how would Jesus' claim that "there is no one good but God." Love these ideas and thoughts and is very much challenging my ideas, and making me search the scriptures!
Everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God.
it might seem like a logical conclusion to say that since we have free will SOME must be perfect - but that's not the view of the biblical authors, who, as I read, maintain a human free will. We're going to get into this more in the next post.
Thank you for this post. I think this kind of a discussion allows for a lot of fruit to be reaped! With that said, I would like to offer some fraternal pushback. You seem to pit the privation theory of evil against Calvinistic thought in such a way that the two are mutually exclusive. I do not want to discount your experiences as a Calvinist, but I do not think that characterization meshes well with what many heavyweights of the Reformed tradition say on this issue. For example, Calvin himself explicitly assents to Augustine's privation theory of evil which is no different than what you are positing as far as I can tell (page 169 of "Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God"). Francis Turretin, who wrote the textbook that Reformed seminaries used for centuries holds to the same understanding. You can track down his thoughts in the 9th topic of his Elenctic Theology, first chapter. I can send you the relevant passages if you are interested. The last example I would put forward (with two unashamedly lengthy quotes) is the Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck.
He writes,
"Aside from the good substratum by which sin is sustained and to
which it clings, it can therefore never be defined in any way other than as
“privation of the good.” One must remember, however, that in using this
language we are speaking abstractly and metaphysically about sin. And
from that viewpoint, it has no existence, is no substance, but a
nothingness, nothing positive, but only something privative. Anyone who
wanted to conceive it differently would thereby make evil independent and
eternal in a Manichean sense and posit a supreme evil over against a
supreme good. The above objection raised against defining sin as
privation, accordingly, actually rests on misunderstanding. Abstractly and
metaphysically, sin is privation and may not, nor can from a Christian
position, be viewed in any other way." vol. 3 p. 140 of Reformed Dogmatics.
Elsewhere, and precisely in agreement to the point you make in your article, he writes,
"Thus, although sin in virtue of its own nature strives toward
nonbeing, it nonetheless has no power over being itself. It cannot create;
neither can it destroy. Accordingly, neither the essential character of the
angels, nor that of humans, nor that of nature, has been changed as a result
of sin. Essentially they are the same creatures before and after the fall,
with the same substance, the same capacities, the same powers. Both
before and after the fall, humans have a soul and a body, intellect and will,
feelings and passions. What has changed is not the substance, the matter,
but the form in which these show themselves, the direction in which they
function. With the same power of love with which human beings
originally loved God, they now love the creature. The same intellect with
which in the past they sought the things above now frequently, with
admirable acuteness and profundity, makes them hold falsehood to be
truth. With the same freedom with which they formerly served God, they
now serve the world. Substantially, sin has neither removed anything from
humanity nor introduced anything into it. It is the same human person, but
now walking, not toward God but away from him, to destruction. “Sin is
not some positive essence but a defect, a corruptive tendency; that is, a
force that contaminates mode, species, and order in the created will.” vol. 3 p. 139
So, I do not think that Calvinism (at least the variety that is historically rooted) is really incompatible with what you have said in this article. Total Depravity can be understood as a pervasive privation of good i.e. no part of the unnatural person possesses the Good in fullness. Rather, every part is lacking such that it functions defectively. The main difference I see is that the Reformed, like Bavinck hold that sin involves an ethical relation in addition to its ontological privation aspect. So, to frame it in the terms you put forward, ontologically/metaphysically speaking, the Reformed would have no issues saying humans are good. However, they would say that ethically speaking, they are not. In my view, the East has traditionally been weak on acknowledging an ethical reality and boil everything down to ontology and metaphysics (I would not say I am caricaturing since this was the precise point I read an Orthodox theologian makes on differences between East and West. You can find the article titled "Being Saved - The Ontological Approach" on AncientFaith.com). I don't accept this either/or; I think there is a legitimate both/and.
If you read this far, I appreciate your endurance and look forward to your additional thoughts/posts!
Very familiar with Bavinck and I think what he does is seeks some major consistency within a reformed Calvinistic framework. I'll just say two things :
1. There's easier, more consistent ways of doing it.
2. If you read Calvin in other more modern reformed folk, they tend towards that Manichaen / dualistic framework.
So, while I think you can hold a reformed view, I think there's lots of extra work to be done to keep it internally consistent.
Let me explain.
If you said to any reformed person you know today :
"Humanity is essentially the same, by nature, before and after the fall" ( a la bavinck ) you'd be met with tons of opposition.
You know ?
Ps. Love these comments
Thanks for the response! I agree that most modern Calvinists would activate “assimilate or die” mode if I used that Bavinck quote in their presence 😂. However, I think that’s due to an insufficient framework being taught in popular works. Turretin makes equivalent distinctions to what Bavinck makes so I’m not sure Bavinck is unique on this issue. I think the issue is greatly helped and any real tensions in Reformed theology are resolved when you bring that ontological and ethical distinction to bear. That’s not even a Reformed innovation, they inherited it from Lombard and Aquinas. I guess I don’t see the tensions as clearly as you do and haven’t quite detected a sense of mental gymnastics needed to resolve it. When I see excess in contemporary Calvinism (which you are rightly pointing out) my instincts are to reform it rather than break from it. And in that pursuit, I’ve found that the OG Calvinists already have the conceptual tools necessary to do it, they’ve just been lost in the Ides of Modernity.
great thoughts here -
and while i do think you're right, that there's the conceptual tools available, i think those only exist in the system. but that's a long story for another post.
Been waiting for this one! Love your thoughts and can’t wait to hear more.
So you’d say that, because sin is the absence of something Good (or True or Beautiful), we abuse our free will by grasping at things that meet those “desires” quickly rather than through God. For example, lust isn’t a “thing” its the absence or perversion of seeking love, intimacy, and physical touch -- aka it’s easier to succumb to “cheap intimacy” (lust) rather than the correct intimacy of love and desire (Godly marriage). Am I understanding this right?
YES!
man, so good, leighton.
Lust is a great example.
Beauty, for example, finds its source in God - and God has designed humans to enjoy and participate in Beauty in a variety of ways, sex being one of them. He sets out the parameters for what the FULL enjoyment of that is, and when we distort it, or use His Good gifts in our own way, we sin. We lust.
Lust doesn't exist like Beauty does. Beauty, and every beautiful thing, finds its source in God. Lust, for example, is a perversion of beauty in some capacity.
I too have departed the Calvinist camp and landed home in Lutheranism- but this is where I actually find the Calvinists to be most accurate. The texts are clear (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13) that we were essentially “dead in sin.” Taken at face value I think we have to believe it- in regards to spiritual matters God has to act first & it is not a matter of our good will. Article II of the Augsburg Confession expresses this. At the same time I would say Christ has died for all though, that He loves all and wants all to come into the fold. God acts through means of grace so that we can respond via those (baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc.).
My question though would have to be then where do you land now denominationally? With this view & others I’ve seen you express it seems like you don’t neatly fit into any major expression of Christianity…. Maybe closer to some than others- but not fully committed to one camp.
I think God still acts first - and we're going to get into the details of all that - anything but that idea leads, either slowly or quickly, into Pelagianism.
The view in this post is broadly Eastern Orthodox - if you wanted to pin it down - with a few other ideas tossed in. Not because I dont want to fit into a camp, but because I think, often, those rigid lines stop us from having real conversation in places that matter.
That’s fair and my reply was more broadly speaking than what this article necessarily aims to convey.
I will say I do believe lines and distinctions matter though. We should fit in somewhere, but that shouldn’t stop the dialogue as you stated.
Stay blessed.
Of course, we all need a home and family. On this aspect, I'd theologically agree with the East. But my home church wouldn't agree with me.
this makes me think of the wendell berry quote--“there are no unsacred places;/there are only sacred places/and desecrated places.” there are only sacred places, and places where the absence of the sacred thing is felt most deeply.
You're writing often makes my brain hurt, but in the best possible ways! Can't wait to share with a friend and jump into some discussion!
that's the way !
I really appreciate how you chose to side away from the 'using a single/couple verse/argument' approach that nowadays so often invades apologetic discourse.
LOL - the verses will come, but we gotta do some work first !
Hey, I know I’m a bit late to the party but thank you for such a thought provoking question! I thought your point on sin being specifically non substantive was particularly interesting. I don’t think I’ve ever considered it to be honest. On that line of thinking though, how do you think about how sin affects nature? What causes death and decay? Would you say that God’s presence no longer dwells on earth as it did in Eden and that lack of presence causes it?
The question is HOW does sin affect nature - it can't do it in a sort of in and on because it isn't substantive. So the results of sin bring death. Which is essentially leaving the life of God
First off, love this post. Brilliant.
How do you think free will and love work together? Part of my issue with determinism is that it seems to eliminate the ability to love. What I mean is: I think love is willing the good of the other, regardless of cost to self. It’s a sacrifice. Worship is love aimed at the highest good (God, hopefully), so also a sacrifice. If I cannot choose God (assuming He moves first and intensely pursues us) then how can I love God? Sacrifice cannot exist without will. If we take away free will, I’m just left with feelings as a barometer for faith. This led me to believe we are made in God’s image, with free will, and He pursues us endlessly, calling us to respond to Him in Christ.
Yeah I think free will is a must. A full and legitimate free will, not the word games of the determinists or compatibilists. Essentially, my view is that we grow in freedom as we Love God and neighbour more and more.
This is an excellent post that has really given some language and understanding to the ache and confusion that I have when it comes to Calvinism.
I have attended a reformed church that is Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) for almost all of my life and while I love this church dearly and the people in it, I have struggled significantly with the concepts of TULIP and Calvinism, and the lack of nuanced thinking in regards to these concepts.
I think you very wisely point out that it is no walk in the park to just get up and leave this type of theological framework, especially if you have been immersed in it for years and it is the lens through which you view your relationship with God and the world.
Being able to read through this post though and digesting the concept of sin as being a privation instead of an actual substance and my natural state of being, has been incredibly encouraging and eye opening.
Appreciate the dialogue and conversation, and greatly looking forward to part 2!
I am also a recovering Calvinist, so this is so helpful to think about in a new way!
I really like your emphasis on our inherent value as humans simply because God made us.
I feel like this opens up a can of worms into so many topics!! I won’t post all my questions, but I hope you touch on identity next! I’m having trouble distinguishing identity from our desire/ choosing to sin. Excited to see what you have to share next.
And a question: what would justification mean from this view? From my understanding it is him taking my sin and giving me his righteousness. If I am already good why does he give me a new name? I hope that makes sense!!
That is such a good question - we still need justification ( we will get into this ) - for the sins we actually commit. The atonement, in my view, is primarily one of Christ's Victory and Recapitulation - that Jesus succeeds where Adam failed. This means, Jesus is victorious of the dark powers that enslave us and Death that looms over us ( as well as setting us free - salvation and the Holy Spirit still make us new creations ).
Could I get the references for those Calvin quotes? Thanks 🙂
lol yeah -
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/c/calvin/institutes/cache/institutes.pdf
the first quote is on page 647 ( actual book ) end of paragraph 9
the second one is from book 1 chapter 18, and the entirety of paragraph 4 - bust especially Calvin's explanation of starting at the top of 206.
This whole framework you laid out was super helpful. I grew up Calvinist, but as I’ve been reading I have noticed it’s inconsistencies. My one question is how you understand Paul’s language in Romans. He seems to be talking about sin as substance there, especially Romans 7. Just trying to understand, not at all picking a fight.
we're gonna get into it - one step at a time.
worldviews / first principles matter - especially for this conversation
I’m in the same camp as you, but like you, I may be able to defend my ideas theologically, i have a hard time interpreting Calvinistic proof text in a non Calvinistic way.
For example, you say something along the lines of “how can you blame someone for sinning if God commanded it”.
I agree. But I immediately hear my Calvinist buddy say, “see you just don’t want to accept the Scriptures because Paul already addressed this with Romans 9”
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
Thoughts?
we're going to get into it -
but I'll say this :
Your buddy has made a logical fallacy, begging the question / assuming the conclusion. He has assumed his worldview / interpretation is correct and then saying "see, the text says that."
but there have been people, the majority of people for the majority of church history, who have differed - I'm not appealing to their authority or to tradition - but just to say, there are other views.
Do you think there is any form of "bondage to sin" intrinsic in your refined understanding of sin as the "privation of the Good"? I'm thinking specifically in the context of Romans 5-8.
It all depends how you define it. Give me your take
I think, especially from Paul's description of sin in Rom. 5-8, that sin can be described as a "controlling force," or something that keeps humanity from living in the Good (also what some biblical scholars have expressed as faithfulness). However, I am also a proponent of how some of the Jewish scholars describe sin, seeing it more as an "evil inclination" more so than something that becomes the primary marker to identify humans (as the Reformed position claims in their expression of original sin).
I think the two understandings above are not mutually exclusive and that there can be a sense of bondage to "sin" intrinsic within the definition of sin as an "evil inclination." I also think this definition aligns more with how you understand sin as a "privation of the Good." Although, I do recognize that describing sin as an "evil inclination" can easily be understood in more Reformed terms.
What do you think?
What do you do with ideas like the old man, and the flesh? how would Jesus' claim that "there is no one good but God." Love these ideas and thoughts and is very much challenging my ideas, and making me search the scriptures!
Don't fret - we're gonna be getting into that soon !
If all have free will then why do all sin? Shouldn’t there be at least a few who choose not to fall in sin
lol no - that's not how it works.
Everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God.
it might seem like a logical conclusion to say that since we have free will SOME must be perfect - but that's not the view of the biblical authors, who, as I read, maintain a human free will. We're going to get into this more in the next post.