Augustine of Hippo has some interesting remarks pertaining to Romans 5:12:
"But if the apostle had wished to assert that sin
entered into the world, not by natural descent, but by
imitation, he would have mentioned as the first
offender, not Adam indeed, but the devil, of whom it
is written, that 'he sinneth from the beginning'; of
whom also we read in the Book of Wisdom: 'Nevertheless
through the devil's envy death entered into the
world.' Now, forasmuch as this death came upon men
from the devil, not because they were propagated by
him, but because they imitated his example, it is
immediately added: 'And they that do hold of his side
do imitate him.' Accordingly, the apostle, when
mentioning sin and death together, which had passed by
natural descent from one upon all men, set him down as
the introducer thereof from whom the propagation of
the human race took its beginning" (On the Merits and
Forgiveness of Sins 1.9).
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
John.ch.8:44NIV"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. "
ReplyDeleteMatthew.Ch.5:44,45NIV"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. "
The apostle would certainly have precedent for referring to Satan as the father of sinners in the sense of pioneer/founder.
The apostle John later took up similar themes in his first epistle (chapter 3).
ReplyDeleteCould this be another example of shiliach?
ReplyDeleteTechnically the devil is the “cause” but Adam ( technically Eve) was his instrument and death entered into the human race via Adam because he sinned first as I don’t think Satan can “naturally” die
Augustine's inability to read Greek sufficiently has led to all kinds of tangles in western theological interpretation, since his interpretations were held so highly (not without reason Augustine was a theological genius, nevertheless not being able to read Greek sufficiently is a major major handicap).
ReplyDeleteInteresting point, Anonymous. Another point about Adam is that he was the progenitor of the human race and the family head.
ReplyDeleteRoman, I agree that Augustine's knowledge of Greek was weak, so his interpretations were based on other factors, including tradition and Neoplatonic thought.
Michael Molloy writes that no western theologian was more influential than Augustine between his day and circa 1517. Despite his lack of proficiency with Greek, I think he's right about sin being passed down by natural descent.
@Mr. Foster
ReplyDelete" I agree that Augustine's knowledge of Greek was weak, so his interpretations were based on other factors, including tradition and Neoplatonic thought."
I don't see a logical connection between the beginning and the end of this sentence. Just because he didn't know Greek well, why should it follow that he was influenced by such and such? The most that follows from this is that he mainly did not read the Bible in Greek, but at first in the Vetus Latina (Itala) translation, and then Jerome started constantly sending him his translation, the Vulgate.
Augustine was not "influenced" by tradition, but he simply did not stand on the basis of the norm of "sola Scriptura" invented only in the 16th century, and he believed that the Church's "kerygma" was an apostolic tradition that had to be preserved and was the standard guideline for the interpretation of Scripture. But he is not the only one, practically all ancient Christian authors write about the importance of keeping "the Tradition", such as: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc.
By the way, how did you like the movie I recommended?
ReplyDeleteNincsnevem, I haven't watch the movie yet, but plan on it.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that tradition did not influence his interpretation of the Bible? I know that he wrestled with Manichean thought and Neoplatonic Philosophy shaped his theology.
I agree that sin was passed down by "natural descent" (obviously one has to take that metaphorically, or at best analogically, 'sin' is not some physical defect empirically verifiable in the genetic code), but what I take issue with in Augustine is the idea that what was passed down was some forensic 'guilt,' and I think the view that what was passed down was something more akin to a sickness (you see this more in the eastern tradition which never left the Greek) needing to be healed (alienation from God is a condition we find ourselves in, not something requiring punishment).
ReplyDeleteActually his NeoPlatonic thought (especially his theory of capital T truth, and forms in the mind of God) are what I like about him, and what I dislike is his systematic theology and scriptural interpretation, now that I think about it Origen's theology and scriptural interpretation is what I love about Origen, his neoplatonic flourishes I tend to think were mostly wrong headed (not entirely, but a lot of it), so my approach to Origen and Augustine are almost complete opposites.
Roman, I take the natural descent language more literally in view of Romans 5:12. We sin and die and nothing unclean can produce something clean: so I'm not sure how I was born into sin and shaped in iniquity if it wasn't passed down like a sickness being passed from parent to child. Maybe sin cannot be verified by scientific experimentation but something has to be passed down through the sex act for us to all be sinners and dying because of Adam.
ReplyDeleteAre we guilty in the eyes of God when we're born? What about Ephesians 2:1-3 or Colossians 1:21-22?
I like reading Augustine and Origen although I disagree with them both on one level or another although I'm more sympathetic to the latter than to the former. Sorry, my brother, but I am not a fan of Neoplatonism. For starters, I take issue with Neoplatonism about how to define evil, about the existence of Forms, and Plotinus' emanationist theory. However, I find his theory of beauty fascinating and his analysis of the mind's/soul's journey to the One.
@Edgar Foster
ReplyDelete"Are you saying that tradition did not influence his interpretation of the Bible?"
No way, on the contrary! I have just said that each of the early Christian church fathers only dared to represent such interpretation of the Scriptures that had a basis in Tradition. The "sola Scriptura" is a modern innovation. There was a consensus that the creed cannot be orthodox of those who cannot refer to any of "the fathers", so his claim is an innovation.
Augustine in bk.2 on Baptism against the Donatists ch.7 says, “This custom I believe comes from Apostolic tradition, just as many things are not found in their writings nor in the later councils, and yet because they are guarded by the universal Church they are believed to have been handed on and commended only by them.” And bk.4 ch.6, “The custom which even then men, looking backwards, did not see instituted by later people, is rightly believed to have been handed on by the Apostles.” And bk.4 ch.24, “What the universal Church holds and which was not instituted by Councils but was always retained, is very rightly believed to have been handed on by Apostolic tradition.”
Athanasius in his book on the Decrees of the Nicene Synod against Eusebius says, “Behold, we indeed have shown that this opinion has been handed on by hand from the Fathers to the Fathers. But you, O new Jews and sons of Caiaphas, what ancestors of your names can you show?”
It is a Catholic dogma that original sin is not transmitted by imitation but through inheritance (transmission). This is because the essence of original sin includes that it is an inherent sin for everyone, even if not a personal act. Only Pelagianism and rationalism, which deny the Catholic concept of original sin, could conceive that original sin does not propagate through inheritance. However, in terms of how this transmission occurs, various thoughts have emerged among Catholic theologians over time. Today, however, it is a universal view, which we must state with certainty: original sin is transmitted through procreation from the male, insofar as by this means every individual is incorporated into Adam's family tree, thereby attracting the fate flowing from the patriarch, the original sin (August. Concup. nupt. II 26, 41 ff.; Thom 1II 83, 1 ad 4; Mal. 4, 1).
ReplyDeleteProof. The bearer of original sin is not the body, nor the combination of body and soul, but solely the soul; because only it is capable of bearing sanctifying grace, and consequently, it can also be the subject of deprivation of grace. However, the soul does not carry original sin as a separate entity but only insofar as it gives life and form to a body belonging to Adam's family (as the form informing the human body). God did not envision the human soul as a spirit intended for and starting as an angel but thrust into a body as punishment (Origen), but as the substantial form of the body; and it only becomes a partaker in Adam's inherited sin if it becomes a member of Adam's family, that is, if it is incorporated into the family tree in which Adam's sin's debts and consequences continue to live and act. This happens through procreation; specifically, through male procreation; because this represents the active, formal principle of the propagation of the human species (the female represents the passive, material principle) [Thom 1II 81, 5 ad 1]. Just as, in the case of Adam's fidelity, procreation would have been the means of transmitting supernatural goods, now being the propagator of a nature deprived of supernatural goods, it also spreads the deprivation; in the same way, the disgrace of a stigmatized man or the misfortune of a disfavored man is transmitted to their descendants through the procreation of the family's male members.
It is evident from this that the law of original sin applies to everyone who is a descendant of Adam by the will of a man (Jn 1:13). Conversely, anyone not born of a man through procreation does not partake in original sin in any capacity or degree: Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the notion that the transmitter of original sin is the pleasure and sensation woven into the act of procreation is mistaken. Because
ReplyDeletea) pleasure would exist even in the mere state of nature, and yet it would not propagate original sin.
b) Conversely, if in the current order of salvation this desire and sensation were completely eliminated, original sin would still be transmitted. This questionable view feeds off the concept that the essence of original sin is not a relation (deprivation of grace) but a quality (exclusively or primarily disordered desire); then, indeed, the idea presents itself that its transmitter is also the disordered desire.
This implies that the holiness of parents or their exemption from original sin (through baptism) does not protect their children from it. The word of the Apostle (1 Cor 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." Cf. August. Pecc. merit. II 9; Serm. 294, 16; Thom Mal. 4, 6 ad 4.), to which Calvin refers in support of his view, does not pertain to justification but states: the children of Christian parents are born as candidates for justification, for Christian holiness; and to this extent (as those called to holiness, metonymically) the Apostle calls them holy.
Challenges. 1. The human soul is created by God; procreation as such only realizes the condition for the soul's creation. However, what God creates is good; thus, procreation does not transmit original sin. For it would make God the author of sin, who creates the soul. – Solution. The soul, considered in itself, as God's creation, is good. Indeed, it is intended to form a substantial unity with the body. This too is good. Moreover, there is nothing wrong in becoming a descendant of Adam through this. Therefore, God could have willed these three aspects. Original sin only falls upon the person through incorporation into Adam's family, thereby taking upon themselves the sin-inheritance of Adam, the patriarch. But this is not by God's will, but by Adam's. God only permits this; and He could do so without detriment to His holiness. All the more so because the establishment of a new human being, or a new subject of sin, here does not signify a new offense against God; it is a fact already completed once and for all with Adam's personal sin; there is no God-offending, rebellious spirit in Adam's descendants under the title of original sin alone (Cf. Thom Mal. 4, 1; Pot. 3, 9 ad 3.).
2. If original sin spreads through procreation, marriage as a sin-propagating entity is somewhat evil. – Solution. Procreation is only the instrument, not the causative reason, of original sin; the causative reason is Adam's transgression. Procreation and marriage, in themselves, considering their nature, are good; for their positive intention is directed towards the creation of a good human being, who only incidentally, contrary to the procreative intention of the parents, attracts the deprivation of grace as an inheritance from Adam. Even so, with original sin, it is better for a human being to be brought into existence than not to exist at all (Thom 1II 83, 1 ad 5.), not to mention their Christian calling.
Well, if sin is alienation from God, we don't have to "inheret" anything other than that alienation, which is what I think the metaphor is getting at, i.e. sin is alienation from God and that's what was inhereted and that leads to death, in otherwords sin isn't something "added" to human kind, it's a lack.
ReplyDeleteEphesians 2:1-3, I see nothing about guilt there, there is τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, but I don't see how that should mean that literally God is angry with us and needs to punish us (or someone else) as opposed to a metaphor meaning our alienation from God is experienced as wrath, anger, but the ransom reveals his love. The same with Col 1:21-22, I don't see anything about guilt here, our alination caused us to be enemies because our minds were wicked, not that God hated us as enemies, but our wicked minds wicked due to our alienation from God, made us enemies. But now we are reconciled, and "holy and unblemishsed" i.e. our sinful nature is washed away. Too me theses verses make so much more sense and cohere with the rest of Paul once we get rid of a forensic framework.
I'm also much more of a fan of Origen, one cannot read Origen and not come away with the feeling that you're dealing with someone who was both a genius, and deeply deeply in love with Christ and God, and someone who took his faith extremely seriosuly. I know you're not a fan of neoplatonism and I do not hold it against you at all :), one day I might realize you were right all along on these metaphysical issues we differ on, but that day hasn't come yet.
Funny enough I think Nincsnevem's traditional catholic view is closer to Foster's than my own.
ReplyDeleteBTW, although I disagree with Palagius on many things (like that we can make ourselves perfect, or that sin is limited to acts of sin and not a state of being that we find ourselves in prior to acting in this world), I do appreciate his not watering down the radical ethics of Jesus.
One thing about Augustine, he does break with earlier (greek) fathers in viewing inhereted sin as involving inhereted guilt, no?
Personally, I think sin is multifaceted: it's alienation from God, but also imperfection and it's an inclination that leads us away from God. I'm drawing on Romans 7 here.
ReplyDeleteJohn 3:36 speaks of those who do not accept the Son remaining under the wrath of God. Does that not show that wrath is being attributed to God? Namely the wrath that we're born under.
To be clear, I do not believe that God punished his Son in our place, but if there's no guilt, why did Israel give guilt offerings? Becoming reconciled to God implies that one is estranged from God.
I agree that sin is multifaceted in its effects, but I think ultimately it goes back to alienation from God, i.e. our inclination to do bad comes from our alienation from God (Romans 6:12-14), which further alienates us. I think this is why Paul says that law makes us aware of sin, because it reveals to us our alienation from God in our sinful acts.
ReplyDeleteJohn 3:36, I think wrath here can be understood as simply God's destruction, i.e. the opposite of everlasting life (union with GOd) is god's wrath (alienation from God which = destruction and death). So I think we are under wrath, but I don't think that should be interpreted as God being, as it were, positively angry with us, wishing us harm, but rather interpreted as an effect of alienation from God being experienced as wrath.
I think there is guilt, in the sense that when we sin, and are aware of sin, we feel guilt, and we know we fall short, and God knows we have fallen short, but I don't think this is forensic, so I don't think guilt offerings were a penalty, but rather something Jehovah gave to his people as a means to demonstrate their remorse and repentance, which is necessary for reconciliation, so as to "wipe away the sins," in other words we can be in union with God with a clean concscious. I don't think these things ought to be thought of as "forensic" (which by it's nature follows an exchange logic in which the exchange allows for a parting of the ways) but rather as communion, a gift logic.
I think the ransom follows both that logic (offering) as well as a recapitulation/christus victor logic, i.e. we are saved from the results of sin by Christ taking the effects on himself and overcoming them, so that we can be children of Christ rather than Adam.
"Well, if sin is alienation from God, we don't have to "inheret" anything other than that alienation"
ReplyDeleteOriginal sin is a sin only in an analogical sense, a deprivation of supernatural grace, of justification, of the supernatural gift that Adam received. When we say that "original sin" is inherited, in fact this depreviction is inherited, in much the same way that your child would not inherit your fortune if you had lost it in the casino.
Before the Fall, humans were in a state of sanctifying grace and original integrity, not inclined to sin, free from the compulsion of death and suffering, and possessed exceptional knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe Book of Genesis describes how, after creation, humans "conversed" with God, indicating a close relationship with Him. Being in a state of sanctifying grace means, in human terms, being worthy of speaking with God.
Paul always interprets the state we enter through conversion as a renewal or restoration. This refers to the original integrity (status integritatis), which parallels with the paradisiacal state of humanity: Contemporary ethnology suggests that 'pygmy primitives' are not degenerate but rather undeveloped, infantile tribes, representing the earliest form of human culture accessible through empirical evidence. Their simple, puritanical moral life, relatively purified religious beliefs, and the immediacy of their worship, as well as the nature of their occupations (men hunt: Adam named the animals; women gather plants and fruits: Eve's sin involved the forbidden fruit), present a remarkable parallel with the partially described, partially inferred state of the first human in Scripture.
The first human couple was free from so-called disordered desires or inclinations to sin. This does not mean they were incapable of sinning, as they did fall into sin, but that their nature did not draw them more to evil than to good. Therefore, in this state, they could not commit venial (lesser) sins, as they knew precisely whether each of their actions was in accordance with God's will, and their nature's inclination towards evil could not serve as an excuse. Hence, it is pointless to ask whether the first sin was grave. The first couple could only commit grave sins.
Being free from the compulsion of death is not exactly the same as immortality. Thus, the first human could have died without sin if they were put in a compatible situation with life (e.g., drowning, falling from a high place, beheading). Therefore, they could have experienced a violent death, which follows from their physical nature. Freedom from the compulsion of death means that humans (and likely all living beings) would have been unfamiliar with natural death (aging) and disease. Saint Augustine makes a clear distinction when defining the gift of human immortality: humans in their original state were "able not to die" (posse non mori). True immortality, or "not being able to die" (non posse mori), is only found in God (August. Gen. ad lit. VI. 25,36).
In response to how the endlessly multiplying humanity would fit, it can be said that, firstly, the universe is infinite, and God could have prepared living space for humans living in friendship with Him anywhere. However, it is more likely that God intended a supernatural role for humans from the beginning, and after a suitable period, humans would have left the natural world without undergoing a painful death, and their bodies would not have seen corruption, similar to the Catholic teaching regarding the Virgin Mary, conceived without original sin.
The Church Fathers saw the absence of suffering in humans in that the first human couple was not afflicted by the thousand miseries of current existence, as they were destined to live in harmony with nature and God in the "Garden of Delights," completely free from the struggles of the fight for existence (see Augustine's work De Civitate Dei). Humans did not have to struggle with their instincts either, as in the state of sanctifying grace, their instincts were completely under the control of their intellect, so they did not have to struggle with themselves. Here, the nearly universal conviction of pagan religions that human life began with a golden age (aurea prima) serves as confirmation.
ReplyDeleteThe first human's knowledge imparted by God (scientia infusa) was very great, yet this knowledge extended primarily, though not exclusively, to spiritual matters. Adam named everything, and in the language of the Bible, naming signifies dominion over and exhaustive knowledge of the named things, but this knowledge should not be exaggerated. In the words of Thomas Aquinas: "Adam possessed that knowledge which was necessary for him as the head of humanity and as the first man" (Thom Aq. STh. I. 93. 3,4). His earthly knowledge was definitely limited. This is inferred firstly from the fact that he was capable of learning, and secondly, it is evident from how relatively easily Satan was able to deceive him.
Roman,
ReplyDeleteIt's hard for me to see how everybody from Adam onward with the exception of Jesus is branded a sinner, and yes, I know but disagree with Catholicism that Mary was not born with sin/sinful tendencies. This conversation is between Roman and me, so I'm not brining Mary into this conversation. I think Roman and I both agree that all humans from Adam onward are "sold into sin" and have sin living in them (Romans 7:14-18). How can these words be true unless we have inherited sin via sexual relations?
Admittedly, talk about God's wrath needs to be done with care. I tend to agree with the early fathers who argued that God has emotions, only not emotions like ours. Furthermore, when I speak about divine wrath, I am not implying that God wishes harm on the human race. Far from it (John 3:16). But I believe we are born with sinful tendencies or ungodly impulses (Psalm 51:5). My parents, great-grandparents and their parents all were born with the same tendencies on down the line. But to your point about divine wrath, I concede that it's not exactly like human wrath, but neither do I want to soften its force either.
I see the guilt offerings as not being only about subjective guilt, but objective guilt too. Makes me want to review Merold Westphal's God, Guilt, and , Death. See also Leviticus 5:1-19.
Hebrews Ch.7:9,10NKJV"Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."
ReplyDeleteRoman's Ch.5:12NKJV"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— "
Yes, I certainly agree with Edgar that Mary was as much sold to sin as anyone else.
ReplyDeleteI think that perhaps one could say that the the reproduction of human beings happens through sexual relations, obviously, but I don't think that "hands down" sinfulness, to me I don't consider sinfulness to be something added to humankind, or something in addition (like a cancer or something like that), but a lack, namely alienation.
So being branded a sinner is simply a recognition that one is alienated from God, i.e. if Adam had the responsibility for his descendants and the earth, and he chose to separate himself from God, the source of life, that means that this effects those things in his domain, i.e. his descendants and the earth itself, such that we are all born into a state already alienated from God ... not guilty, not with something added, but lacking union with the source of life.
I completely agree with you on wrath, I might say that God hates sin with a wrathful fury, because sin harms humans and separates them from God, perhaps how a Father would hate the drugs that damage his drug addicted child, and hate the addiction, but he hates it precisely because he loves his child.
Certainly a straight reading of Leviticus 5 could warrant saying that this is a kind of objective guilt, however I think the offering was not so much an exchange, but a kind of reconciliation, a token of repentance. It seems to me as though if it was a kind of forensic exchange, no forgiveness takes place, if I get some legal penalty, and I pay a free, the judge saying after "you are forgiven" makes really no sense, being forgiven means being released from the penalty, if someone else pays the judge that really makes no difference, nothing was forgiven.
aservantofJEHOVAH
I'm not sure what the relevance of Hebrews 7:9-10 are.
Romans 5:12, I'm not sure what point is being made here, are you saying this necessitates a forensic reading?
@Roman
ReplyDeleteFirstly, regarding Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, a Protestant theologian argued: "Are these statements true? From a Protestant point of view, we can only say: we do not find them in the Bible. There are theological CONSTRUCTIONS that inherently exclude these interpretations, but we must also clearly see that this does not directly come from the text of the Bible, but from certain INTERPRETATIONS of it. The Bible remains silent on these matters."
In the Old Testament, several types are found according to the interpretation of the Church Fathers, which also implicitly contain the Immaculate Conception.
a) Thus, according to the Old Testament conception, the virgin Israel, betrothed to Yahweh (Hos 1:1,2:21; Isa 5,49:13,54:1,62; Jer 2,3,31; Ezek 16; Lam.), is entirely pure; consequently, the antitype, the Virgin Mary, and the Church are likewise. Similarly, the woman clothed with the sun, fighting the dragon in Revelation (Rev 12), testifies to how closely the Virgin Mary and the Church are connected in the biblical conception, thus reinforcing the Old Testament typology and supporting the Marian interpretation of the proto-evangelium.
b) The constant ecclesiastical usage, in both typological and applied senses, interprets and refers many other scriptural passages to the Virgin Mary, at least serving as a sublime illustration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. For example, "As a lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters." "You are altogether beautiful, my love; there is no flaw (MACULA) in you." "Who is she that looks forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?" (Song of Songs 2:2; 4:7–15; 6:9; cf. 5:2 3:6; Ps 45). Judith and Esther are typologically applied to the Virgin Mary; similarly, the passages referring to eternal wisdom, if cautiously applied so that the Virgin Mary is not regarded as eternal wisdom itself, but as the chosen dwelling of eternal wisdom among creatures (especially Prov 8:22; Sir 24).
Exod 25:11-21 – God had the Ark of the Covenant overlaid inside and out with purest gold, so as to preserve God's Word in this manner.
Luke 1:35/Exod 40:34-35; Luke 1:39/2Sam 6:2,12; Luke 1:41/2Sam 6:16; Luke 1:56/2Sam 6:11/1Chron 13:14 – The evangelist Luke testifies that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, who carried and preserved the Word of God.
Rom 3:23 – "for all have sinned" - Here, Paul the Apostle speaks about there being no difference between Jew and Gentile, using the word "all" (Greek: pas) in a collective sense (= a group of people), not in a distributive sense (= everyone, every single person). The word "all" in Scripture does not elsewhere mean "every single one" (cf. Rom 1:29; 11:26; 15:14; 1Cor 1:5; Mt 2:3; 3:5; 4:24; 27:25; etc.).
https://www.catholicvoyager.com/2011/04/misuse-of-luke-222-24-against.html
Roman, just to clarify, I guess one place we differ is that in humble estimation, sin results in alienation but is not alienation per se. Sin can be defined in multiple ways, depending on the usus loquendi. However, it's difficult for me to understand why Israel had the annual Yom Kippur and why those who become Christians have to repent of their sins if sin is a lack and alienation. Furthermore, if nothing was passed down from Adam via sex relations, why do we have the impulse to do wrong? Why do we get sick and die?
ReplyDeleteHere is an article on guilt offerings: https://www.thetorah.com/article/leviticus-rhetorical-presentation-of-the-sin-and-guilt-offerings. It just seems to me that they were given to absolve the offerer of guilt for sin.
See also https://bible.org/seriespage/6-guilt-offering-leviticus-514-67-71-6
Forensic is not a bad word IMO. Again, it depends on the sense imputed to the word. Nevertheless, I do look at much of the judicial language in the Bible through metaphorical spectacles. Another point to consider is that the Bible never spells out how the ransom works.
Nincsnevem, I understand that the Marian dogmas are not explicitly drawn from scripture but based on theological constructions based on reflections on scripture, and I think that's a perfectly acceptable theological method, but I don't find the theological arguments Marian dogmas persuasive at all, but here is not the place to debate that.
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely that sin can be defined differently, even in Paul he sometimes uses it to refer to individual acts, and the state of alienation. So perhaps let me clarify how I think of it so far (again, I may be wrong, these are not easy issues and no model is without flaws).
ReplyDeleteAdam sinned alienating man and his descendants from God.
Sin leads to death and results in an inclination to turn from the good, which involves doing acts of sin.
The law leads man to know his acts of sin as sin, and thus to know his alienation from God, so God gave his people a way in which they could repent of their acts of sin, although the real problem remains, alienation from God (a drug addict kid can apologize to his parents for breaking their heart, but they all know that he's going to continue using until he gets help, and they can't let him in the house until he's clean, so they can accept his apology, but they can't really fully forgive him and let him home until he's clean).
Jesus lived died and was resurrected as the new Adam, releasing us from our state of sin. This means that we can repent of our sins and it be more than just a formalism, i.e. us drug addicts can say to our father we are sorry for the mess caused, and our father can say "I forgive you, and I look forward to seeing you home any moment now, because I know you've gone through rehab and your clean."
As for the impulse to do wrong, I don't have any mechanism, all I can do is just say that if God is infinite goodness, then alienation from him as free agents, involves a drive to do other than what is good, and if God is the source of all life, then alienation from him leads to death. I could perhaps try and make some metaphysical framework (like the notion of spirit or something like that), but outside of that I think that one can understand the impulse to evil, the result of sickness and death, but thinking of God as the ground of all goodness, life, etc.
The bible does not spell out how the ransom works mechanically, I agree, to the frustration of many (myself included), however I am inclined to say that it uses this kind of symbolic, quasi-mythical language, and typology, simply because what we have going on is not a mechanism but something deeper. My attraction to Christus Victor and Recapitulation models (of Origen, Ireneaus, and more recently Gustaf Aulen and Greg Boyd) is that it, in my view, captures the language of the ransom in the NT best with out imposing an external model.
As far as the article you sent me, the author is largely, it seems doing a historical reconstruction, which certainly does connect sin and guilt, I don't have the knowledge or tools to engage with the scholarship itself, and I have no reason to challenge his conclusions. All I'll say is that my theological approach to the ransom works backwards, from the anti-type to the type, i.e. whatever the original historical purpose of the offering was, the full purpose needs to be interpreted through Christ, (the same method one uses when looking at the prophetic messianic verses, many of them historically had nothing to do with some future cosmic Messiah, but one can see how, they actually were about the Messiah only through the full revelation through Christ); that is NOT to say we ignore the historical meaning, since the historical meaning was ALSO revelatory, but the main meaning with regards to the economy of salvation is through Christ.
@ Roman all mankind was present in Adam thus if JEHOVAH Had exercised his right to instantly put Adam to death none of us would have been born and justly so. Adam had no right to pass on life to his descendants. The second Adam by remaining faithful earns the right to pass on human perfection to his "offspring"
ReplyDeleteaservant, only thing I would disagree with is the use of the term "right," at least depending on how it's meant.
ReplyDeleteRight= legally entitled.
ReplyDeleteRight, this is where I strongly disagree, one will find no such forensic understanding in the bible, and such an understanding would make nonsense of Paul's ransom/salvation metaphor since the person keeping us enslaved would be God himself. Also the logic of "law" cannot apply to God (for reasons known since the euthyphro dialogue), God is held to nothing higher than his own will, which IS love.
ReplyDeleteLove is a law for it binds the one qualified by it to treat others justly,Adam chose to break the law,JEHOVAH being the just God that he is is compelled to punish willful (or even unwillful) lawbreakers,
ReplyDeleteYour "logic" here seems farfetched.
The only person acting unjustly(I.e unlawfully/unprincibly) in this scenario is Adam.
Just a few brief comments here, Roman.
ReplyDeleteI think forensic (legal) language is used throughout the Bible and applied to God. A long time ago, a now deceased sister told me that everything Jehovah does has a legal basis and that he always sets legal precedents by his past actions. She based this idea on God's justice and righteousness. I don't know if you agree, but see Hebrews 8:6 NWT.
No, I don't believe that God was keeping us enslaved and the Bible never makes any such attribution to God, but Heb. 9:24 appears to say that Jesus offered his blood/the value of his sacrifice to Jehovah and Hebrews spends a lot of time drawing parallels between Yom Kippur and the sacrifice of Jesus.
Take this for what it's worth, but some theologians think God binds himself by his own laws. Whatever the case, I believe we have to account for figurative language in Scripture too.
The Euthyphro dilemma is complex: I talk about it briefly in my book, Investigating Life's Meaning. Quite frankly, there are many possible answers to the dilemma and some have chosen modified versions of the dilemma's horns or insisted that the dilemma is a false dilemma. See Richard Swinburne's way of handling these issues.
I agree that God's will is love: Dorner calls God's love, the primal ethical.
Deuteronomy ch.32:4NIV"He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he."
ReplyDeleteJEHOVAH is Charaterized by moral perfection thus one can say that he is bound by "law" in its purest sense.
Thinking about law and freedom, see James 1:25; 2:8.
ReplyDeleteForensic language is used in the bible, but it's not how the ransom is presented.
ReplyDeleteSaying God has a legal basis for everything he does assumes that there is a legal code independent of God for which he is held, there is no such thing, his past actions do not set a precedent for HIM, since he always acts righteously and in love and cannot do otherwise.
I agree that God obviously does not keep us enslaved, and the bible never says that, which is why I think the forensic explanation, which implies that God keeps us enslaved, is flawed. Hebrews does draw parallels between Yom Kippur (and other sacrifices) and the sacrifice of Jesus, but I don't think Yom Kippur was a forensic penalty being paid either.
About the Eythyphro, I've actually read that to my daughter (7 years old) as a little exercise on how to reason critically and examine claims, it's quite good for that.
About the dilemma itself, I personally think it's a false dilemma, given the classical Abrahamic view of God as utterly transcendent and supreme and immutable in his character, so what we call goodness is just another way of speaking of God, and morality is always in comparison to God, so it's not that God can be good or bad, God is goodness itself.
aservant, Paul in Romans, in describing law, describes it as being downstream from sin, God is not bound by law anymore than I am bound by being myself, btw, to take a forensic view of the ransom, one has to propose that there is some "law" in which an innocent person can be killed for the sin of a guilty person to compensate the victims of that guilty person's transgression, there is no such law, the sacrificial system was also not a system of compensation.
No law does not necessarily imply an external code,it can refer to norm prescribed by the nature of a thing, such law might be expressed in terms of a written code but the such a code would be downstream from this innate norm. So justice is normative for JEHOVAH he is such by nature any participation or facilitating of injustice would be unlawful for him, refusing to uphold is own standards would be unthinkable on account of his own nature,this is law in its highest sense, it is the kind of law that those seeking intimacy with JEHOVAH wholeheartedly pursue. Jeremiah ch.31:33 NIV"“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." Viewed from this standpoint any pattern of thinking out of harmony with JEHOVAH'S Personality would be unlawful.
DeleteTo be honest, I incline toward thinking that some of the ransom is expressed in forensic term by Bible writers, but I need to build a stronger case for it. I'm pondering Ephesians 1:7 and Revelation 5:9-10. Besides those, I think one problem is how one defines forensic and understands its application. IMO, there is more than one way to understand what it means for the ransom to be forensic. AS I said earlier, I believe we're dealing with metaphorical language anyway. And while the NT might not explicitly spell out a forensic view of the ransom, we know that the ransom is connected with covenants, and the NT does use forensic language when discuss the new covenant.
ReplyDeleteOn the legal issue, I don't think it's a necessary inference that it implies a legal code outside of God. One theologian said that God possibly binds himself by his own law or just standards, not needing anything external to do it. I think my friend's point was also that Jehovah sets precedent not so much for himself but for us like the supreme court sets precedent for the US. One example is when Satan and his cohorts are destroyed, the Revelation book says this will set a precedent for all eternity and the case will never need to be tried again regarding who is the rightful sovereign.
I pretty much agree with your analysis of the dilemma: it's likely false for the reason you state. Moreover, Anthony Kenny gives other reasons including if we think about propositions like "A judge judges because he's/she's a judge."
Edgar, that's certainly true, that forensic can be understood in different ways, for me the starting point should be the understanding that we are dealing with metaphors and analogies, the question then is at what level the metaphor is and where the analogy is.
ReplyDeleteThat God binds himself by his own actions, I would agree, but I would be careful applying the term 'law' in a univocal way, since his being bound is entirely a consequence of his immutable will.
Aservant, "a norm prescribed by the nature of a thing" what does that mean? Also how can it apply to God? How can God have a nature perscribed independently of his will?
Also justice is "normative" but what determines what is just or not? This is the question at hand.
I agree that sin=deviation from God's will, and if you want to call that unlawful I have no problem with that, the question is whether if God is then bound to punish that sin.
I think God's personality is love, and that is why Justice, in the bible, is generally restorative and not punitive, i.e. justice is ultimately not to send the debtor to debtor's prison, but to release his debts.
Because God did not create himself,therefore he has an eternal unchangeable nature, his will is determined by his nature, if a thing has a nature are norms that are bound to be derived from that nature, perfect circles for instance are bound to have circumferences that are diameter × pi in length, it's the law. God's will is not abitrary he is consistent in his adherence to principle, there is nothing wrong with just punishment, if we are entitled to relief of our burdens then there is no such thing as undeserved kindness/grace, JEHOVAH is paying the bills and therefore is Justly entitled to set standards of right and wrong,the only alternative that is might makes right and JEHOVAH Still comes out on top,. There would be no need for a ransom if JEHOVAH Could simply overlook sin justly,observe there is no ransom for Satan and his demons.
ReplyDeleteMatthew ch.4:17NKJV"From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “REPENT, for the kingdom of heaven [c]is at hand.”" No one is entitled to JEHOVAH'S Mercy repentance provides a basis for mercy,JEHOVAH'S Primary motivation is to rid the universe of wrongdoing and wrong desire,if forgiveness contributes to that it is serving a just end if forgiveness makes no contribution to that end then it is not serving a just end.
Roman, I would say that "law" especially when applied to God is anything but univocal. The discussion by Aquinas in ST illustrates the multiple ways that one an understand law (eternal, natural, divine, positive).
ReplyDeleteAservant.
ReplyDeleteI think that's fair enough, except one should then say that there is no real distinction between God's will and his nature.
"Jehovah is paying the bills and therefore entitled," this is meaningless, God doesn't "set the standards" the standards just are his nature, nor does the idea of entitlement come in whatsoever, entitlement can only be meaningful once one has some moral norm by which one can determine who is entitled to what.
First of all Jehovah forgives trangressions all the time, the ransom frees us from sin, power and death, and Jehovah freely forgives individual sins, that's what forgiveness means.
But if you take a forensic view look at what you're actually saying. Jehovah HAD to punish sin, because of Jehovah's nature, and that nature only requires that SOMEONE be punished, innocent or guilty. This is entirely alien to everything in scripture, and in fact contrary to Jehovah's self revelation in scripture.
No one is contesting that moral rightness is grounded in God's nature, nor is anyone saying that sin needs to be dealt with for reconciliation and everlasting life, what is in contestastation is the nature of the ransom.
Foster: I agree, this is why we have to be very careful in applying a forensic understanding of the ransom.
His nature requires that justice be done, your suggestion that punishment is wrong due to being out of harmony with his mercy is illogical, there is nothing wrong with just punishment, both JEHOVAH'S punishment and forebearance is with the aim of ridding the universe of wrongdoing and wrong desire.
DeleteBoth things can be true: his example is the standard but it's up to us to chose to accept his help in attaining that standard or not, jehovah forgives sins when doing so brings his goal of a world without wrongdoing and wrong desire closer, yet all men die because it is in harmony with JEHOVAH'S Justice that things occur in tjis way. There is no war between JEHOVAH'S mercy and his justice they both serve each other, the imbalance created by wrongdoing must be undone at the cost of the one guilty of creating that imbalance,that is justice.
ReplyDeleteWe all die for our sin but thanks to the ransom we get a replacement life from a new Father. Both justice and mercy are duly satisfied.
aservant,
ReplyDeleteI am not saying there is disharmony between his justice and his mercy, I'm saying you're using a standard of Justice which is entirely independent from God's revelation in the bible, and treating it as though it applies over and above God's revelation.
If you want to know what justice you don't just make it up, you see what Jehovah defines as justice.
Jehovah's nature requires justice be done, but justice itself is determined by Jehovah.
"The imbalance created by wrongdoing must be undone at the cost of the guilty one"
This is just not true, debts are forgiven, and even trespasses are forgiven, there is no cosmic karma that needs to be balanced.
Paul says the wages sin pays is death, not that death is a punishment from God, God saves us from death, he's not saving us from himself.
The ransom is Jesus dying for our sins so we can have everlasting life, IF you take the ransom to be a balancing of vindictive justice, the only logical conclusion is precisely what the bible does not say: God punished Jesus for something someone else did, or sin creates an impersonal debt of human life that God demands.
None of this is said anywhere in scripture nor is it in line with any principle of Justice revealed in scripture.
The reason why sin results in death that JEHOVAH is holy and is source of life thus he cannot sponsor sin. Even if debts are forgiven someone has to bear the cost of fhe death,my point us that NO ONE us entitled to forgiveness or it isn't forgiveness,you are not paying attention to what I am actually saying. Quit strawmaning when JEHOVAH forebears more than justice is being effected,it does not mean that he does not have the right to punish in the cases where he forebears if he had chosen to strike down our original parents on the spot for instance he would have been acting justly. For our sake he chose to temper the Justice with mercy still he required repentance from those who would receive the full benefit of his mercy. And we do suffer for our sins and justly so we don't get off scotch free, only those who realize that they are not entitled to JEHOVAH'S Mercy are in line for it.
DeleteHere is the divine standard, of justice
Exodus Ch.21:23-25NKJV"But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Under the mosaic law the repentant sinner was required to approach JEHOVAH with a guilt offering. A reminder that he was undeserving of JEHOVAH'S Forebearance. If the forgiveness we have received was the fruit of Justice we would not owe JEHOVAH our Thanksgiving. The hireling does not need to be thankful for the wages he has duly earned and to which he is justly entitled.
Roman,
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to see how death is not ultimately a punishment from God when he told Adam that eating from the tree would bring about death. If death did not come about via divine judgment, then whence does it come?
However, I'm not necessarily arguing that God saves us from himself.
In human governments, we know that certain actions bring about determinate consequences. If we speed, we might get a ticket: that punishment is a consequence of a legislative decision made long ago by rational agents. When we pay the penalty for the ticket, the money goes to the ones who made the laws or who govern the country. The process is concrete, not abstract. Could something similar happen with the ransom?
I also think about the connection between the ransom and Yom Kippur.
John Ch.3:36NKJV"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the WRATH of God ABIDES on him.”"
ReplyDeleteThessalonians Ch.1:6NKJV"since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with [c]tribulation those who trouble you,since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with [c]tribulation those who trouble you,"
Here is the divine standard of justice. Those who repent FROM THE HEART put themselves in line For JEHOVAH'S Mercy but they must understand that the forbearance that gave them an opportunity to repent is not a thing they are entitled to, JEHOVAH Owes no one time to reconsider,this is a manifestation of his undeserved kindness.
Ecclesiastes Ch.7:1NIV"A good name is better than fine perfume,
and the day of death better than the day of birth.
2It is better to go to a house of mourning
than to go to a house of feasting,
for death is the destiny of everyone;
the living should take this to heart."
I agree that sin results in death because God, as the source of life, does not "sponser" sin, although I would say God doesn't have to do anything, sin just IS a rejection of Go and thus a rejection of life.
ReplyDeleteWhy does someone have to bear the cost of the death? Are you talking about the life for a life law? That law precisely says that only the guilty person can be killed, and this is not a "debt," it's capital punishment. You cite exodus 21:23-25, read 22, the offender must pay, the killer must be killed, look at Numbers 35:31.
Not to mention that this principle does not show up anywhere in the New Testament other than in the Sermon on the mount, where Jesus supercedes it, and certainly not in relation to the ransom.
The sacrificial system was not a reminder that he was undeserving of Jehovah's forebearance, that was not the way the sacrificial system worked.
Why do you keep talking about "rights" or "entitlements," this is not language used in the bible and are conept developed in the modern post-enlightenment era.
It makes zero sense to talk about God's "rights" and our "entitlements" as though there was some state or constitution or something which determineds what God has a "right" to do and what we are "entitled to."
I'm not saying God doens't have the right, or we are entitled, I'm saying that whole framework is foreign to the ranson as it is developed in the bible.
We give thanks to God becuase he saved us, it's not a forensic issue AT ALL, when you start forcing the forensic framework on the ransom it makes no sense.
Somebody has to substitute as a father because our first father had no right to pass on human perfection to his children he was "dead",only a living Father could pass on a right to human perfection to his children. The guilt offering under the Law was of a substitutionary nature. Leviticus ch.17:10 NIV"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. " Life for life, just like the atonement furnished by Christ. The ransom only makes sense as a substitution required by divine justice. Note there is no ransom for the demons. Because of the way humans get their life a blood atonement is legally necessary for those choosing to repent and accept JEHOVAH'S Help in meeting his standard.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Ch.5:17NIV"“Do NOT think that I have come to abolish the LAW or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to FULFILL them." The ransom is very much according to law
ReplyDeleteYou keep bringing in the concept of "rights" as though it's a relevant concept, the question is whether or not the ransom is forensic in anything more than a metaphorical way, "rights" is a forensic term, in fact, its a MODERN forensic term, so you're begging the question without justification.
ReplyDeleteLeviticus 17:10 does not in any way whatsoever imply a forensic penal exchange, the blood makes atonement, atonement covers over the sin, it is not the payment of a penalty, so the principle life for life which IS a penalty, i.e. a death penalty for a crime, is an entirely different thing.
Again you have to argue for the position, you can't just assert it.
The ransom makes perfect sense if you just read what Paul and Hebrews and John say, they never bring in the forensic penal substitution that you're claiming, neither did the Christians in the first few centuries.
I agree the law foreshadowed the ransom, which is exactly why the forensic penal substitutionary model doesn't work.
1John Ch.3:4NIV"Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." No law ,no sin,and hence no atonement. And of course any atonement for sin(the breaking of the Law) must be according to Law.
DeleteIf there is no violation of law then there is no need for any atonement. Where there is no law there is no sin to atone for. It is incredible that you would claim that LEVITICUS has nothing to do with satisfying law. Paul's whole argument in Hebrews was that Jesus sacrifice was superior according to the Torah. That is why Jesus could say.
ReplyDeleteJohn ch.5:45NIV"“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. "
Galatians Ch.3:13NKJV"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), " Where is it written that the one hanged on a tree is cursed? And of course if there is no substitutionary atonement Christ's hanging from a tree means nothing to anyone other than Christ himself.
ReplyDeleteI did not say Leviticus has nothing to do with satisfying law, what I said is that it doesn't imply a forensic penal exchange.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument in Hebrews that Jesus's sacrifice was the superior sacrifice.
I also agree that the sacrificial system, was in part, a recognition of sin.
For Paul though, law makes one recognize sin, but sin is something from Adam, sin, for Paul, is more than just breaking the mosaic law, it's a state of alienation from God that affects all mankind, that's why all men die, not because all men break the mosaic code, because all men are not held to the mosaic code, but because all men are enslaved by Adams sin.
You're confusing two things, 1. the mechanism of the ransom, and 2. Paul's argument for why the ransom makes the law no longer binding for God's people.
We have to agree to disagree on that. If it were not a substitutionary atonement the fact that the soul of the animal was in its blood would be irrelevant. Note it is the soul of the animal that atones for our soul.
ReplyDeleteLeviticus ch.17:11NIV"For the life(Soul) of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life(soul). c"
Similarly with the antitype. Matthew Ch.20:28 NIV"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life(soul) as a ransom(antilutron) for many.”
Hebrews Ch.9:17-19NIV"17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. "
Note that Moses is considered to have died vicariously through his offering.
The high priest offering on Yom Kippur was in effect an offering of himself vicariously through his offerings for the sake of the people hebews Ch.5:3.
Christ of course literally offered himself as a substitute for the penalty demanded by law.
Hebrews ch.9:12NIV"He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining b eternal redemption. "
Galatians Ch.3:13NIV"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”
I Observe that you did not address my questions re:Galatians ch.3:13. The scripture does not say that Law is how sin is recognized it says that sin IS the breaking of the Law of JEHOVAH. You seem to be confusing the symptom with the disease. Because our Father was under the sentence of death we are not entitled to life. Dead men cannot become Fathers, our death dealing imperfection is the fruit of a Just sentence for lawbreakers. Just as Levi could be credited with paying tithes to Melchizedek because of the righteousness of his Father before he was born and thus be subject to JEHOVAH'S Blessing on that account. So too we could Justly share the guilt of our Father's law breaking prior to to our birth. The death dealing imperfection that renders us incapable of perfect obedience is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
The word AntiLutron is actually used at 1Timothy ch.2:6 and not at Matthew ch.20:28 which uses the word Lutron as I erroneously stated.
ReplyDeleteGal 3:13, the context of it is why Christ's sacrifice releases people from the Law, it does NOT define sin as breaking law, the context is precisely justification and whether or not justification is achieved through keeping the law.
ReplyDeleteHebrews 9:12, nothing in that scripture describes a penalty, unless you believe that the sacrificial system was a penalty.
Heb 9:17-19, NOTHING here about a penalty, the blood effectuates communion (the covenant), it is not a penalty by any means.
Lev 17:11, again, atonement is not a penalty.
My claim is that forensic concepts are being read into passages that are simply not there.
If Christ execution on a stake has nothing to do with substitution why mention the Law at all. The fact that the law states that the one hung on a stake is cursed would be neither here nor there. And the sheep or bull being put to death loves its life as much as the sinner it is being put to death instead of so yes there is clearly a penal substitution. The sinner should have died an innocent victim is dying instead of him. Read Hebrews Ch.9:17NKJV"For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. " Note nothing is said of innocent animal victims dying it says the mediator of the Covenant must die. The animal victims are a stand in for Moses who is the Mediator. Similarly with the high priest the animal victims who would given the choice would have preferred to live are stand ins for the priest who is the mediator between the repentant and God.
ReplyDeleteGalatians Ch.3:13NKJV"Christ has REDEEMED us from the CURSE of the law, having BECOME a CURSE for(Hyper:instead of,in behalf of) us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), " Clearly a substitutionary atonement.
ReplyDeleteRoman
ReplyDeleteSin by definition is breaking Gods law
Not that I 100% agree with Servant.
In this case I like harners qualitative thesis to explain sin- we naturally go to what the bible says are “freshly desires” ( makings gods* (money, power etc) homosexuality etc ) it’s an inclination it’s a “fault” if you will
*note that even a belly can be “theos” - the range the word has is huge.