Is temptation, in and of itself, sin?

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sin/moral evil was useful only to teach man of its ugliness, futility, harmfulness, and of our inability to overcome it apart from God.

But it only teaches some of man sufficiently to bring them to Him in repentance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If God wills/creates evil does He have malice? Or is His purpose very different-to allow creation-us-to experiment with our rebellious and wayward ways in order that we might learn of their empty and harmful consequences, that we might turn from ungodliness to godliness, that we might turn from evil to good having directly learned of the distinction between the two the hard way-and of the supreme value of the latter.

Why "malice"? Why do we even unwittingly give place to the viewpoints of many atheists and other unlearned who speak of the mean and brutal OT God?

The rest of what you ask rhetorically is certainly sound reasoning. But what about His justice and the harsh realities for those who will be eternally judged? Is this judgment not His will?

When it says He hates unrighteousness (which is sin, which is lawlessness, which is disobedience and hatred of Him), should this just be explained away as just an anthropopathism, or as some teach that it simply means He chooses righteousness and rejects unrighteousness?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,885
3,525
✟320,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
On the one hand, and at one level, Agreed.

But, what is going on with the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God and Creator who:

1. Created the universe with the potential for sin
2. Created the man and woman with the potential for sin
3. Tested the man and woman
4. Allowed His known adversary to interact with and influence the woman

Did He not know what would take place? It sounds over-simplistic at this point to just leave it at Him not wanting Adam... And discussing this as 2 wills seems pointless and not a real point. Are all of His subsequent works and His plan of salvation reactive?

There's a much bigger picture here. When God put's man in place, was not a large part of the angelic realm already in rebellion? Isn't God resolving this situation with His creation of mankind?

When God creates man He's already dealing with rejection and rebellion in His creation. Surely He wants and will ultimately have willingly obedient love in all His creatures who remain. Agreed, He wanted Adam to love/obey Him, but did He not know before creation what Adam would do, and what it would take to have what He ultimately wills?

It seems to me we're underestimating what it takes to end up with a creature who will choose love and obedience over rebellion, and thus we're underestimating what God is doing within His perfect and holy character to accomplish it.
All of this brings up some very important theological truths. With free will creation can oppose the very will of God, and once that opposition, that rebellion, that evil, has occurred, any such being can and will try to influence other similarly equipped beings. Man’s unique position is that he’s given time within which to use that same free will to freely return to alignment with the Creator’s will, with nature, with Reality, even as grace, God’s help, is an essential part of the endeavor. IOW we can work out our salvation with He who works in us.

In the bigger picture God made His world "en statu viae", in a "state of journeying" to perfection as it's been taught. The Church has even referred to Adam's sin as the "blessed fault" for winning us so great a Redeemer. The idea is that God can only be opposed to evil but can nonetheless use it to ultimately bring about an even greater good, knowing the beginning from the end as only He does. We can understand His purposes vaguely but, yes, to love God with one's whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and ones neighbor as oneself is a tall order, impossible without grace. But man's justice or righteousness, defined primarily by that love, is all the greater to the extent that he's participated in and chosen it willingly. God is meaning to produce something out of this grand project known as creation, something great, something noble and grand itself, something better than He began with, rather than just-almost reluctantly?-save one group of otherwise worthless wretches while damning the rest. Of course He knew what Adam would do-and yet that doesn't make what Adam did right.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Or are you suggesting that God gave the law because He likes to spread evil?? Could He have a greater good in mind instead?

Surely He has a great and ultimate good in mind. But has He not also stopped every mouth and made the whole world liable to Him by putting men under law? Will everyone escape judgment?

It seems you're addressing only one side of a coin here. There's no doubt of His grace. And, there's no doubt of His judgment.

NKJ Romans 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

We seek to live in His goodness. We have record of His severity. Many have and will see His severity as well as His goodness. Do you think we'll have recall of His severity when we all live with Him in His goodness? What about those marks that remained on Jesus' after He was resurrected - do they ever go away, or will we always have a reminder of where He and we have been?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,885
3,525
✟320,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
But it only teaches some of man sufficiently to bring them to Him in repentance.
That's where man's will comes into the mix, rather than God simply determining that this one should go to heaven while this one burns eternally, with no criteria other than His fiat, the reprobate given no opportunity to contribute anything to either their own demise or potential salvation. Here're some true teachings, where the role of man's part of the equation is emphasized:

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

God owes man absolutely nothing-and could squash us all like a bug just as Jesus could've squashed His persecutors and executers like a bug. But God loves man lavishly, wanting much for us and so expecting much from us. With God we can...do all things. He desires to solicit the best from us, but won't force the issue at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All of this brings up some very important theological truths. With free will creation can oppose the very will of God, and once that opposition, that rebellion, that evil, has occurred, any such being can and will try to influence other similarly equipped beings. Man’s unique position is that he’s given time within which to use that same free will to freely return to alignment with the Creator’s will, with nature, with Reality, even as grace, God’s help, is an essential part of the endeavor. IOW we can work out our salvation with He who works in us.

In the bigger picture God made His world "en statu viae", in a "state of journeying" to perfection as it's been taught. The Church has even referred to Adam's sin as the "blessed fault" for winning us so great a Redeemer. The idea is that God can only be opposed to evil but can nonetheless use it to ultimately bring about an even greater good, knowing the beginning from the end as only He does. We can understand His purposes vaguely but, yes, to love God with one's whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and ones neighbor as oneself is a tall order, impossible without grace. But man's justice or righteousness, defined primarily by that love, is all the greater to the extent that he's participated in and chosen it willingly. God is meaning to produce something out of this grand project known as creation, something great, something noble and grand itself, something better than He began with, rather than just-almost reluctantly?-save one group of otherwise worthless wretches while damning the rest. Of course He knew what Adam would do-and yet that doesn't make what Adam did right.

I've said this in essence before and will say it again, You express yourself eloquently and I enjoy your writing. I have had extensive agreement with and appreciation for what you've said.

I don't think there's any disagreement about Adam not doing what was right. I also don't disagree with what you're saying about God's intentions through His grace. As I just said in a preceding post, I think the questions are related to a deeper query about the depths of His will and how He functions to get His creation where He intends to take it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,885
3,525
✟320,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I've said this in essence before and will say it again, You express yourself eloquently and I enjoy your writing. I have had extensive agreement with and appreciation for what you've said.

I don't think there's any disagreement about Adam not doing what was right. I also don't disagree what you're saying about God's intentions through His grace. As I just said in a preceding post, I think the questions are related to a deeper query about the depths of His will and how He functions to get His creation where He intends to take it.
Ok? And presumably that means getting it there by a means deeper than simple predeterminism.
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's where man's will comes into the mix, rather than God simply determining that this one should go to heaven while this one burns eternally, with no criteria other than His fiat, the reprobate given no opportunity to contribute anything to either their own demise or potential salvation. Here're some true teachings, where the role of man's part of the equation is emphasized:

I've no questions about man's responsibilities given the abilities God has given to us. I have zero thoughts that anything and everything He does is not righteous and just.

My questions, again, boil down to His will and how He does things. As I said earlier, we can say He did not want Adam to fail Him, and on the one hand this is certainly true. But, on, the other hand, He designed His entire creation to provide for the potential of failure, and He allowed (as you were pointing our before your hiatus, which I completely understand, BTW. I take them also for similar reasons and purposes) things to take place and provided the command that would be the basis of man's failure. I see that He did all of this knowing what would happen and what it would take to resolve everything for the ultimate love.

Thus, it seems, as I said, overly simplistic to look at His will on one level. His will, will ultimately be done to produce what He ultimately wills. Is it not at least in some way His will for us to go through whatever is needed to get us there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ok? And presumably that means getting it there by a means deeper than simple predeterminism.

And I go back to what I said earlier, Is He reactive and making this up as He goes? Does anything catch Him by surprise? Does He just know all the possibilities and wait to see which one will come about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,885
3,525
✟320,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And I go back to what I said earlier, Is He reactive and making this up as He goes? Does anything catch Him by surprise? Does He just know all the possibilities and wait to see which one will come about?
He knows the beginning from the end while we exist in time and experience life-and choose how we’ll live it-sequentially. And so the drama unfolds, and the choices have consequences, regardless of God’s foreknowledge.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,885
3,525
✟320,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I've no questions about man's responsibilities given the abilities God has given to us. I have zero thoughts that anything and everything He does is not righteous and just.

My questions, again, boil down to His will and how He does things. As I said earlier, we can say He did not want Adam to fail Him, and on the one hand this is certainly true. But, on, the other hand, He designed His entire creation to provide for the potential of failure, and He allowed (as you were pointing our before your hiatus, which I completely understand, BTW. I take them also for similar reasons and purposes) things to take place and provided the command that would be the basis of man's failure. I see that He did all of this knowing what would happen and what it would take to resolve everything for the ultimate love.

Thus, it seems, as I said, overly simplistic to look at His will on one level. His will, will ultimately be done to produce what He ultimately wills. Is it not at least in some way His will for us to go through whatever is needed to get us there?
All true, and yet we simply cannot take man’s will out of the process either, simply because God wants it involved and created man as a morally responsible being.

Incidentally, the reason I gave for my hiatus was mainly tongue in cheek. The truth was that work has been really busy. Thank you for the civil manner BTW. I probably get a bit defensive at times.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He knows the beginning from the end while we exist in time and experience life-and choose how we’ll live it-sequentially. And so the drama unfolds, and the choices have consequences, regardless of God’s foreknowledge.

the end from the beginning (maybe it's late where you are as it is here). If you can't tell yet, those "regardless" statements I've set aside for this thread!
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All true, and yet we simply cannot take man’s will out of the process either, simply because God wants it involved and created man as a morally responsible being.

Agree and wouldn't dream of it.

Incidentally, the reason I gave for my hiatus was mainly tongue in cheek. The truth was that work has been really busy. Thank you for the civil manner BTW. I probably get a bit defensive at times.

Sounded reasonable to me! I wasn't being tongue in cheek. I haven't seen you remotely in the league of "defensive." But I am looking from my point of reference and relative to my own responses...
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,929
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,621.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I loosely threw out "sentenced servitude" after talking about "penal servitude" for katakrima. They were meant to be synonymous. The point being that we were existing in a condition that's beyond the judicial phase and is in a punishment phase from which we can be freed by Christ.
Do the unregenerate experience this as a punishment phase?
Does Christ free the redeemed from sin and death, which is the punishment phase?

But Paul is still subject to sin, with which he must still deal (1 Corinthians 9:27), and to death.
5:16, 18, and 8:1 are talking about existence in the punishment now
based upon the trespass of Adam, that will be carried out in finality at the last judgment/second death on those who do not come to Christ for justification, etc.

5:18 is tied to to 8:1. We can add 5:16 and then we have the 3 times Paul uses this word katakrima. 5:16 shows that judgment/krima resulted in an existence in penal servitude/katakrima (krima > katakrima).
Okay, I think this is where our difference occurs. Do I have the following correct?
judgment = verdict

condemnation (katakrima) = sentence pronounced, punishment to follow stated

(i.e., destiny of damnation/eternal death, from which Jesus' atonement redeems
those of saving faith)

Where do we find "servitude" (fallen nature) as the "punishment phase now?"
5:18 shows that one trespass resulted in katakrima for all people. Combined:
one trespass > judgment > penal servitude for all people.
So those redeemed in Christ by his atonement are still in a punishment phase of sin and death?

I'm not getting where this punishment of "servitude" comes from, as well as where it is linked to the sentence, in the texts.
7:24 is despair of what it's like to exist in this katakrima.
But it's "servitude" and despair only to the redeemed, the unregenerate are basically comfortable with their nature and sin, and experience no punishment of "servitude."
7:25 is like an epiphany in thanks to Christ Jesus for the solution
But the solution, Christ's atonement, does not free us from sin and death in this life, which is the punishment phase now, it frees us from the second death and the lake of fire at the final judgment.
and then the conclusion about the condition, leading into the freedom in Christ from the katakrima and existence under subjection to sin and death.
But Paul is still subject to sin, with which he must still deal (1 Corinthians 9:27), and to death.
So the redeemed are free from eternal death, but not free from sin and death and, therefore, are still in the punishment phase now?
And the unregenerate don't experience their fallen nature and sin as punishment, so they don't feel any punishment, only the redeemed do?

This "punishment now" is beginning to smack (taste like) more and more of man's notion than the mind of God.
This is essentially part of the penal servitude that's being discussed. We could not free ourselves from this body of death that was overriding our will to obey God.
But the body of death is experienced only by the redeemed, the unregenerate do not experience it as any kind of punishment. So only the redeemed experience any punishment now by sin and death?

I just can't get this to stack up. I'm stuck here:
judgment = verdict

condemnation (katakrima) = sentence pronounced, punishment to follow stated

(i.e., destiny of damnation/eternal death, from which Jesus' atonement redeems)

I'm not seeing any basis for our fallen nature being the "punishment of servitude."
I see only the sentence of eternal death (katakrima) at the final judgment.

What am I missing? Can you help me sort it all out?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,885
3,525
✟320,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Why "malice"? Why do we even unwittingly give place to the viewpoints of many atheists and other unlearned who speak of the mean and brutal OT God?
When the point is made that God cannot will or be the direct cause of evil, believers often bring up Is 45:7 along with deferring to God's sovereignty and infinite superiority, using passages from Rom 9, for one, as well as Is 55:8-9, as if any of that means that evil might be ok for Him I guess. Surely God is ultimately in control of all of His creation and far, far superior to it and yet if one wishes to support the concept that God's sovereignty means that no man finally wills other than how God determines him to will, where no other cause but Himself can said to be involved at the end of the day, then malice would have to be attributed to Him as malice is simply and obviously often a motivation for heinous acts that humans commit.

If God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so as to treat the Israelites as he did that would only mean that God placed the selfish evil intent within Pharaoh. But is this necessarily the way it works, or might the matter be more nuanced? Can and does God use the evil intentions, of men, to bring about an even greater good? When Joseph met his brothers years after they tried to kill him he said, in Gen 50:20,

“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”

The Church has struggled with the ‘God’s sovereignty vs man’s will’ question for centuries and while leaving parts of the issue unresolved, it settled on the understanding that, as it pertains to salvation, man’s will plays a role, even if only in the ability to say “no” to God, to resist grace IOW. This brings all of Scripture most fully into play. The following teachings state the church’s position on how “predestination” works, followed by the manner in which God works within man to turn him towards Himself.

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do the unregenerate experience this as a punishment phase?
Does Christ free the redeemed from sin and death, which is the punishment phase?

Yes and Yes.

I think the best way to answer you is to bullet point Romans 5-7 to some degree and point out a few things:

Under the federal headship of Adam (the pattern for Christ the second Adam) Death ruled from Adam to Moses 5:14:
- Through Adam sin entered the world
- Death entered the world through sin
- All men sinned
· Death spread to all men 5:12​
- By Adam’s violation many died 5:15
- Adam’s sin resulted in judgment then penal servitude 5:16
- Adam’s violation resulted in death ruling through Adam 5:17​
- Adam’s one violation resulted in penal servitude for all men 5:18
- Through Adam’s disobedience many were made sinners 5:19​
Here's where we're seeing the Text tell us what the katakrima is: In Adam, man was judged and placed under servitude to death - death literally reigns/rules.

Side-Note also how Sin/Violation/Disobedience are being used in parallel.


Continuing:

From Moses to Christ
(with death still ruling and sin active):
- The law entered to cause the violation/sin to increase 5:20
- The law works to accomplish wrath 4:15
- Sin ruled in death 5:21
- All Jews and Greeks are under subjection to sin 3:9

Now note how sin is also ruling and think back about katakrima. People are literally being ruled by sin and death. This is part of the reason I told you that "under" more precisely means "under subjection to." All are under subjection to sin and death. Sin and death are ruling. This is the penal servitude - katakrima - brought on by Adam in what is typically referred to as his federal headship, which is a pattern for the federal headship of the second Adam. Note the "slaves language that follows:


- Slaves of uncleanness and lawlessness to more lawlessness 6:19
- Slaves of sin 6:20
- Producing fruit for death (death is the compensation for sin) 6:21, 23​
- Torah has authority over a man while he lives 7:1
- When in the flesh, the sinful passions were working through the law resulting in producing fruit for death 7:5
- Sin takes opportunity through the commandment and works to accomplish every desire/lust 7:8
- The commandment provides for sin to come alive and we die 7:9
- Sin takes opportunity through the commandment to deceive and kill us 7:11
- Sin works to accomplish death in us through the good [law] so the sin will shine/become visible – through the commandment it becomes excessively sinful 7:13
- We find that evil is present in us 7:21
- We see a different law/authority in our body parts making war against the law/authority of our mind and taking us captive to the law/authority of sin existing in our body parts 7:23
- We’re miserable/wretched people in need of Christ who will rescue us from this body of death! 7:24​

This is all the penal servitude under subjection to sin and death and then under subjection to Law to aid us in understanding the subjection and what's ruling us. Paul will go on and explain how Christ has freed us from this penal servitude - katakrima. He also has been explaining this in comparing what happens with the Second Adam by the pattern in the first Adam.

We still battle against sin, but it has no authority/rule (literally it shall not lord it over you) under grace. In Christ/Second Adam we have been rescued and saved from being under the rule and authority of sin and death - justified, acquitted, etc., etc., - no longer under penal servitude based in the first Adam. We are under subjection to God, His grace, His Son, His Spirit and it's our commanded responsibility to remain in willing submission to Him as He writes His Law on our hearts and transfigures us.

Make sense?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When the point is made that God cannot will or be the direct cause of evil, believers often bring up Is 45:7 along with deferring to God's sovereignty and infinite superiority, using passages from Rom 9, for one, as well as Is 55:8-9, as if any of that means that evil might be ok for Him I guess.

This is part of the discussion I had with cormack (spelling ?) after asking you about the Is45:7 passage. I asked you what we do with the verse, because it uses a word "create" [evil] that is taught to only apply to God and the same word is used just earlier about His creating darkness. I pointed out that it does not say God "allows" evil.

The "evil" there is speaking of judgments that God will actively create against nations. It does not speak of what we could call "moral" evil and I clarified my knowledge of this several times by writing of His perfect and unchanging character.

The point I was bringing out was simply that we have no comprehensive understanding of precisely how, why, and when He does what He does in so much of what goes on and has gone on, other than by the limited amount of information He has revealed to us that we have understood correctly.

When we get into the Potter and Clay analogies, one question I asked concerned the point at which God determines what type of vessel He will form from the same batch of clay - a valuable one or a worthless one prepared for destruction.

Coupled with this, I also asked if John the Baptist could have been other than who God said he would be, and what is involved in God putting peoples into existence when and where He so wills.

Just to be clear, I'm making no suggestion that God creates moral evil. But, I think it's pretty clear that He was dealing with rebellion before He created Adam, He created the creation with provision of light and dark, He knew what Adam would do, etc... All of which I've already said, so I'll stop short of my usual overly lengthy posts.

Thanks for the input, fhansen.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,929
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,621.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes and Yes.
Okay. . .

katakrino (condemn) is the verb form of the noun katakrima (condemnation)

katakrino = to exercise right or law against; give judgment; pass sentence upon; is the root of katakrima = judgment/sentence of the law on sin = death; i.e., physical death in this life, and eternal death, second death in the next life.

So condemnation (katakrima) does not denote servitude to sin, because there is no law of God requiring servitude to sin. God's law requires death for sin.
I think the best way to answer you is to bullet point Romans 5-7 to some degree and point out a few things:

Under the federal headship of Adam (the pattern for Christ the second Adam) Death ruled from Adam to Moses 5:14:
- Through Adam sin entered the world
- Death entered the world through sin
- All men sinned
actually, all men were made guilty of sin, when there was no law to guilt them
· Death spread to all men 5:12​
- By Adam’s violation many died 5:15
- Adam’s sin resulted in judgment then penal servitude 5:16
Okay. . .this is where the difference is.

These are the NT meanings of
judgment and condemnation:
judgment = verdict

condemnation
(katakrima) = sentence pronounced, punishment to follow indicated

You say the punishment = earthly servitude, I see it as punishment = eternal damnation
- Adam’s violation resulted in death ruling through Adam 5:17
- Adam’s one violation resulted in penal servitude for all men 5:18​
- Through Adam’s disobedience many were made sinners 5:19​

Here's where we're seeing the Text tell us what the katakrima is: In Adam, man was judged and placed under servitude to death - death literally reigns/rules.
Okay. . .you say it's physical death, I see it as eternal death, the second death.
Side-Note also how Sin/Violation/Disobedience are being used in parallel.
However the parallels are of imputation--of sin of Adam and of righteousness of Christ
one trespass>condemnation of man in Adam // one obedient act>righteousness of man in Christ

Continuing:

From Moses to Christ
(with death still ruling and sin active):
- The law entered to cause the violation/sin to increase 5:20
- The law works to accomplish wrath 4:15
- Sin ruled in death 5:21
- All Jews and Greeks are under subjection to sin 3:9
Under its power and under its condemnation to eternal death
Now note how sin is also ruling and think back about katakrima. People are literally being ruled by sin and death.
What is death ruling?
This is part of the reason I told you that "under" more precisely means "under subjection to." All are under subjection to sin and death. Sin and death are ruling. This is the penal servitude - katakrima - brought on by Adam in what is typically referred to as his federal headship, which is a pattern for the federal headship of the second Adam. Note the "slaves language that follows:

- Slaves of uncleanness and lawlessness to more lawlessness 6:19
- Slaves of sin 6:20
- Producing fruit for death (death is the compensation for sin) 6:21, 23​
- Torah has authority over a man while he lives 7:1
- When in the flesh, the sinful passions were working through the law resulting in producing fruit for death 7:5
- Sin takes opportunity through the commandment and works to accomplish every desire/lust 7:8
- The commandment provides for sin to come alive and we die 7:9
- Sin takes opportunity through the commandment to deceive and kill us 7:11
- Sin works to accomplish death in us through the good [law] so the sin will shine/become visible – through the commandment it becomes excessively sinful 7:13
- We find that evil is present in us 7:21
- We see a different law/authority in our body parts making war against the law/authority of our mind and taking us captive to the law/authority of sin existing in our body parts 7:23
- We’re miserable/wretched people in need of Christ who will rescue us from this body of death! 7:24​

This is all the penal servitude under subjection to sin and death and then under subjection to Law to aid us in understanding the subjection and what's ruling us. Paul will go on and explain how Christ has freed us from this penal servitude - katakrima. He also has been explaining this in comparing what happens with the Second Adam by the pattern in the first Adam.
We still battle against sin, but it has no authority/rule (literally it shall not lord it over you) under grace. In Christ/Second Adam we have been
rescued and saved from being under the rule and authority of sin and death - justified, acquitted, etc., etc., - no longer under penal servitude
But we still die. We have not been rescued from the authority of physical death,
we are not free from this "penal servitude" to death.

And Paul is still subject to sin, with which he must still deal (1 Corinthians 9:27).

My point being that condemnation (katakrima) as servitude to sin and physical death doesn't stack up for me. Only condemnation as the sentence to eternal death in the next life (eternity) stacks up.
based in the first Adam. We are under subjection to God, His grace, His Son, His Spirit and it's our commanded responsibility to remain in willing submission to Him as He writes His Law on our hearts and transfigures us.

Make sense?
Except where it doesn't. . .

I still don't get freedom in Christ from the katakrima of existence under subjection to sin and death, when Paul still has to deal with sin (1 Corinthians 9:27), as well as still subject to death.
I do get freedom from the katakrima of eternal death.

And I would really like to see this "servitude" actually/specifically linked in the texts to the sentence/condemnation (katakrima).

Thanks so much for all your time and work.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You say the punishment = earthly servitude, I see it as punishment = eternal damnation

Death ruling - living in [spiritual] death and mortality from Genesis 3:7 and then under the curses of Genesis 3. There was judgment and living in an imprisoned servitude prior to the Law and Paul makes this clear by saying death ruled when speaking of katakrima.

There is something interesting regarding being ruled by death and sin if you caught it in Romans: prior to the Law it says death was ruling and in Genesis 4:7 God warns Cain about doing good and ruling over sin (1st mention of sin and pre-Law). After Law Paul speaks of sin ruling.

Okay. . .you say it's physical death, I see it as eternal death, the second death.

Actually I see it as spiritual death/separation from God and mortality leading either to death with Christ and the new birth through Faith, or remaining in spiritual death with sin and death ruling - leading to all being resurrected, some to eternal life through abiding Faith, and some through no Faith to eternal death at the last judgment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,929
6,050
North Carolina
✟273,621.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Death ruling - living in [spiritual] death and mortality from Genesis 3:7 and then under the curses of Genesis 3. There was judgment and living in an imprisoned servitude prior to the Law and Paul makes this clear by saying death ruled when speaking of katakrima.

There is something interesting regarding being ruled by death and sin if you caught it in Romans: prior to the Law it says death was ruling and in Genesis 4:7 God warns Cain about doing good and ruling over sin (1st mention of sin and pre-Law). After Law Paul speaks of sin ruling.

Actually I see it as spiritual death/separation from God and mortality
Okay. . .so if katakrima is physical death, etc., and there is no katakrima for those in Christ (Ro 8:1),
why are those in Christ still subject to physical death?
leading either to death with Christ and the new birth through Faith, or remaining in spiritual death with sin and death ruling - leading to all being resurrected, some to eternal life through abiding Faith, and some through no Faith to eternal death at the last judgment.
 
Upvote 0