Hamartiology 101 - Sin in theology [View all]

[dmallind]

I have what I think might be an interesting maybe even fun idea. We have often heard the dearth of theologically useful or even serious discussion on DU. I've tried a few times with results ranging from nugatory to indifferent. I'm going to try again with a twist. I will also post a companion thread on the exact same topic at roughly the same time from a more casual and open viewpoint. It will be interesting to see how many and what kind of responses each draws. To be clear: I intend this thread to be a serious, informed and semi-technical but still very accessible discussion and promise I for one will not start, and will even try to resist responding to, the usual backbiting. I won't pretend I can or should be able to direct your responses, but please, if you prefer a more casual, combative or sarcastic conversation, or all three - go to this link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/121838985

OK that said. From a theological view what can be said about sin? We know that the Hebrew word comes from the same root as the missing of an aim or target - khatah, but beyond the obvious meaning of falling short of a given standard that tells us little. The basic threads of which I'm aware tend to separate it into two main defined categories


1) The increase in love for self and decrease of love for God, concupiscence, that is the basis of all sin in the mind, which may or may not become sin of the flesh. Lust after all is desire not for the other but for the gratification of the self. This to me seems to be a more emotional view of sin - one that is different from a judicial approach as in the secular analog of crime. No secular society I can think of criminalizes self-love.

2) The transgression of commandments or laws of the religious community. Here we have a closer version to laws and crime. It is a sin to not do what God says you must, or to do what he says you must not.

Now Jesus obviously spoke about sin, and his most basic answer combines the two, albeit slightly emphasizing the former. If we love God with all our hearts then 1 is no problem, and we will likely follow his laws. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, we are unlikely to break laws that protect them. He does then de-emphasize a strictly legalistic view of sin which is of course the most prevalent view in Judaism, at least in his putative time.

Early theologians spoke about sin too. Most that I can recall defined it as separation from the will of God in both mental and physical terms.

The difference between the denominational views of sin is quite intriguing , as is the role of original sin. Is sin an inevitable result of Adam's actions that leads to depravity innate in us all that can be overcome only by grace and faith as many Protestants say, or can humanity still achieve goodness, if not redemption, without divine grace? Is sin both an action and a result - do we "create" more sin into being in the abstract sense when we transgress? The catechism tells us of venial and mortal sins which require different types of reconciliation. We also learn of both te eternal and the temporal punishments for sin. Liberal theology speaks more of structural sin and less of personal sin.

So my questions would be

1) What is the nature of sin, and is it innate in all humans and if so to what degree?
2) Where did sin arise? From Adam, from Satan, or from human nature? If the latter, why did God create our natures to sin?
3) What is the result of unreconciled sin? Is there a temporal punishment, an eternal one, both, or none at all? What is it?
4) What is both our and God's role in redemption? Are we saved by prevenient grace, by grace that allows us to overcome depravity, by our works or faith or both? Or are we simply forgiven our sins without restriction?

As a nonbeliever, answers from me are necessarily hypothetical, but if I ask I should answer and the following would make most sense from what basic theology I know

1) Concupiscence makes more sense than legalism, and humans must have the capacity to sin and to not sin equally (although not with equal difficulty!)
2) Original sin I reject utterly even were I a believer. Satan is way too neat and tidy a personification too to be real. This leaves by default a created capacity and even predilection to sin if I believed. I can only conclude that a God setting this up simply wants to challenge us to live up to our potential.
3) Both scripturally and based on 2) I cannot conceive of a reason for the potential to sin were unreconciled sin not punished. But I cannot conceive of a God worthy of the name and not outright evil who would entrap us to eternal infinite punishment for finite sin, especially when we must approach the deal through faith alone. Inescapably then, I would as a believer accept the idea of a temporal punishment that would be the overt withholding of reconciliation with full knowledge of its possibility and eventual granting after forgiveness is granted
4) Their must be an active human role. What would the point be of Calvinism's total depravity but a rigged bingo game that would be boring to a 10 yr old's mind let alone God's? To have a human role we must have the capacity to reject sin. Having that must make works part of the equation. If faith alone reconciles us, sin and its existence is meaningless, and again an intellect far below mine let alone God's would not introduce an unnecessary and insignificant variable. Sorry Liberation theology fans but the same applies in reverse. Why would sin exist if it were irrelevant?