Sin as Privation?

[iToldMeSo]

The view of sin as privation is popular among Christian philosophers, but less so among Christian theologians and exegetes, since the Bible seems to depict sin in positive terms. For example, in Romans 6:17-18 (and many other places) sin is depicted as a power which enslaves or binds people.

How would you try to reconcile these views?

My initial thought would be via the following sort of analogy: suppose someone gets into an accident and loses the ability to walk. They've experienced a privation, but at the same time it would make sense to speak of them as being confined (or enslaved) to a wheelchair or, perhaps, enslaved to paralysis.

 

[SkyWriting]

The view of sin as privation is popular among Christian philosophers, but less so among Christian theologians and exegetes, since the Bible seems to depict sin in positive terms. For example, in Romans 6:17-18 (and many other places) sin is depicted as a power which enslaves or binds people.How would you try to reconcile these views?My initial thought would be via the following sort of analogy: suppose someone gets into an accident and loses the ability to walk. They've experienced a privation, but at the same time it would make sense to speak of them as being confined (or enslaved) to a wheelchair or, perhaps, enslaved to paralysis.

I only take the words of Jesus as Gospel. No letters to other people.
The letters cause endless conflict.

 

[public hermit]

The view of sin as privation is popular among Christian philosophers, but less so among Christian theologians and exegetes, since the Bible seems to depict sin in positive terms. For example, in Romans 6:17-18 (and many other places) sin is depicted as a power which enslaves or binds people.

How would you try to reconcile these views?

My initial thought would be via the following sort of analogy: suppose someone gets into an accident and loses the ability to walk. They've experienced a privation, but at the same time it would make sense to speak of them as being confined (or enslaved) to a wheelchair or, perhaps, enslaved to paralysis.

I think you can take most any sin and speak of it both as a positive and as a negative (privation of some good). Take the act of telling a lie. That is a positive act in the sense that one is doing something. Nonetheless, we can speak of it in terms of privation in that it conceals the truth, or takes away from a presentation of the truth by presenting a lie. Is that what you mean?

 

[Tolworth John]

The view of sin as privation (/QUOTE]

The problem is that the act of sinning is enjoyable, there is pleasure in committing sin, we all enjoy sinning.
So how is it privation?
Privation means to loose or to lack something important.

The only way I can see that sin is privation is the feeling of guilt, the loss of peace that I experience when I know I've screwed up again.

 

[iToldMeSo]

The problem is that the act of sinning is enjoyable, there is pleasure in committing sin, we all enjoy sinning.
So how is it privation?
Privation means to loose or to lack something important.

The only way I can see that sin is privation is the feeling of guilt, the loss of peace that I experience when I know I've screwed up again.

This is a good point. However, my guess is that those who wanted to defend sin as privation would take the position that the pleasure derives from that which is good in what we call the sinful act. For instance, adulterous sex feels good not because it is adulterous but because it is sex and sex is a good.

 

[HTacianas]

The view of sin as privation is popular among Christian philosophers, but less so among Christian theologians and exegetes, since the Bible seems to depict sin in positive terms. For example, in Romans 6:17-18 (and many other places) sin is depicted as a power which enslaves or binds people.

How would you try to reconcile these views?

My initial thought would be via the following sort of analogy: suppose someone gets into an accident and loses the ability to walk. They've experienced a privation, but at the same time it would make sense to speak of them as being confined (or enslaved) to a wheelchair or, perhaps, enslaved to paralysis.

Everyone uses euphemistic language. The euphemism itself isn't factual, it's just meant to communicate an idea.

Someone with a deadline might describe time as a taskmaster. Another might argue that time doesn't exist at all, much less in the form of a taskmaster. I don't know how much time they should take to argue the point because they might miss the deadline.