• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Tag Archives: Harmatiology

Sin Usually Enters as a Flatter

06 Thursday Dec 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Harmatiology, Kierkegaard

For it goes so easily to join the dance of pleasure; but when it has gone apace, and it is pleasure which dances with the man against his will – that is a heavy dance! And it is so eay to give rein to the passions – audacious speed, one scarcely can follow it with the eye! – until passion, having taken the bit in its teeth, goes with a still more audacious speed – the man himself is not audacious enough to look where they are going! – carries him forcibly along with it! And it is so easy to permit a sinful thought! – it is so easy, it does not here apply as in other instances that it is the first step which costs, oh, no it costs nothing whatever, on the contrary, the sinful thought pays for itself at an exorbitant rate, it costs nothing – until at the conclusion, when thou must be pay for this first which did not cost anything; for when the sinful thought has gain entrance, it exacts a fearful price. Sin usually enters a man as a flatter; but then when the man has become a slave of sin – that is a frightful servitude, a narrow, prodigiously narrow way to perdition!

 

Soren Kierkegaard, For Self-Examination and Judge for Yourselves! And Three Discourses, trans. Walter Lowrie (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), 86-87.

Is Psychology a Science?

02 Saturday Sep 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in Biblical Counseling, Psychology, Theology of Biblical Counseling, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Biblical Counseling, Harmatiology, Psychology, Science, Theology of Biblical Counseling

Caveat: this is not a fully developed thesis, just some notes for later.

First, there is the problem of the scope of “psychology”. There are things within the scope of that word which are unquestionably “science”, particularly those matters which pertain to physiology. But the word has such a great scope that there are many things which cannot reasonably be called scientific.

Second, there is the question of what can be captured by scientific methodology. Isolating and test for a particularly variable (some agent of action) is difficult enough when we are considering matters involving the functioning of the human body.

The question becomes more complex when we consider various systems of the human body — such as the interactions between various parts of the nervous system.

When it comes to gross-level human experiences the sheer complexity of the nervous system is likely beyond any ability to model.

When it comes to human behaviors, it is unquestioned that environment has effect upon observable human experience covered by “psychology”. The complexity of the environment when coupled with the complexity of physiology makes “scientific” analysis of human psychology extraordinarily complex.

There is then an additional issue: the matters of physiology and environment do not exhaust the human being: there is the entire spiritual, God-ward aspect of human life which is not even considered. However, that spiritual aspect is the most important aspect of human life. Yet, all “scientific” analysis of human psychology purposefully ignores the single greatest element of human psychology: that is like trying to study daytime while excluding all consideration of the sun.

Finally, human psychology has been profoundly affected by sin (our own sin, sins against us, the effects of sin generally). Sin is irrational and thus not capable of scientific methodical analysis: you cannot make reasonable that which is unreasonable by definition.

There are other aspects of this argument (such as pre-commitments)– and it is obviously not a full theory.

Orthodox Paradoxes, Concerning Sin

06 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Sin, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Harmatiology, Orthodox Paradoxes, Puritan, Ralph Venning, Sin

Ralph Venning, 1650:

XI Concerning Sin

81. He knows that he was not when Adam was; and yet he believes that he sinned when Adam did.
82. He believes that sin had no being; and yet he believes that God knows it.
83. He knows not, nor can hardly perceive how he becomes a sinner by generation, and yet believes and confesses that he was born in sin.

Introduction to Biblical Counseling: Sin

28 Thursday May 2015

Posted by memoirandremains in Biblical Counseling

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Biblical Counseling, Doctrine of Sin, Harmatiology, introduction to biblical counseling, Lectures

16437276975_276b99e76a_z

Johann Heinrich Fussli
Satan and Death with Sin Intervening

Sin is the real human trouble: it is the root from which all other troubles spring. Sometimes the trouble is our own sin, but that is not the only trouble of sin. We are also hurt when we suffer from the sin of others. And even if someone were to somehow avoid their own sin and the sin of others, there is the constant of effect of in sin in this world: death, disease, disaster.  While the particular ill may be sin in some particular branch, the root will always be sin and the solution will always ultimately found in the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

Lecture Notes Sin

https://memoirandremains.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/20140112.mp3

Supplementary Notes:

Sin is the Worst of Evils

Sin is Contrary to God

Sin is Contrary to Man-2

The Witnesses Against Sin

The Sinfulness of Sin

14 Thursday May 2015

Posted by memoirandremains in Culture

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bluenose, Breakpoint, Culture, Harmatiology, Menninger, Mohler, New South Wales, Sexual Morality, Sin

In 2008, Gary D. Robinson wrote for Breakpoint:

“In the early ‘70s, psychiatrist Karl Menninger wrote a book entitled Whatever Became of Sin? Years after Dr. Menninger’s death, his question still remains. In fact, it’s underlined in black ink and highlighted in yellow marker.” Whatever Happened to Sin? Menninger — and then Robinson — argue that a standard previously recognized by the broader culture — and affirmed by many — is ignored (or at least flaunted).

But, as the idiom goes, that was then. Sin has taken an interesting course: First there was standard A, conventional morality (particularly as to how one dealt with certain biological functions , which although private have a tendency to affect public life).

The morality of standards A was flaunted, mocked, ignored. The attack was along the lines of privacy, personal autonomy, everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

However, the culture did not rest at a libertarian consensus (the supposed end point of the original attack). 

Rather, the old mockers became the new Bluenose of the most self-righteous, intolerant type (governmental enforcement, public coercion and even odd, shrill calls for violence). The older mockers have raised their own standard, B.  Among its many provisions is the contention that anyone holds standard A is a transgressor of morality.

“100 years ago the surefire way for a Christian to be viewed as immoral was for him or her to engage in pre-marital or extra-marital sex.  Now it appears that the opposite is the case.

“Yesterday the New South Wales Greens called for the state Government to ban certain books from being used in Scripture classes in that state, a demand to which the education board duly obliged.  You can read The Greens statement here.” The new immorality

A similar observation was made in the Wall Street Journal. As Albert Mohler writes:

“Finally, just a few days ago Charlotte Allen wrote the houses of worship article for the Wall Street Journal and it has a very interesting headline all to its own: Modern Sin: Holding Onto Your Beliefs. She writes that the way to sin, in terms of contemporary postmodern American culture, is to hold onto religious convictions – at least any religious convictions that are tied to what the Christian church has taught for 2000 years and what is revealed in Scripture. ”  The Brief, May 6, 2015

It is interesting that Paul’s very strong affirmation of Scripture’s supernatural basis was made in the context of discussing the broader culture’s persecution of those who hold to a different standard:

10 You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra-which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:10-17

If Scripture has no supernatural authority it would be rank foolishness to suffer for an opinion. But if Scripture is True Truth (as Schaeffer put it), if it is a command of God, then one has no choice. It will take such a certain knowledge to adhere to Scripture, when merely naming sin has become sin.

Oswald Chamers, The Psychology of Redemption.2

27 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 John, Anthropology, Biblical Counseling, Hamartiology, Matthew, Oswald Chambers, Romans, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

1 John 3:4, 1 John 3:4-10, Anthropology, christology, Ethics, Harmatiology, love, Matthew 22:34-40, morality, Oswald Chambers, relationship, Romans 13:10, Romans 5:13, Sin, The Psychology of Redemption

In his Psychology of Redemption, Oswald Chambers writes:

“For by Him were all things created . . .” (Colossians 1:16). Did God then create sin? Sin is not a creation; sin is the outcome of a relationship which God never ordained, a relationship set up between the man God created and the being God created who became the devil. God did not create sin, but He holds Himself responsible for the possibility of sin, and the proof that He does so is in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Calvary is God’s responsibility undertaken and carried through as Redemption. The essential nature of sin is my claim to my right to myself, and when sin entered in, the connection between man and God was instantly severed; at-one-ness was no longer possible.

One may contend that Chambers has put the emphasis in the wrong place: “sin is the outcome of a relationship”. Isn’t it true that, “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4) and “sin is not counted where there is no law” (Romans 5:13)? Without question, sin does entail ethical and relational aspects. But we must understand that such ethical considerations are grounded one’s relationship to God.

Consider, for example, the paragraph in 1 John 3 which contains the phrase “sin is lawlessness”. Notice first that John uses the ethical dimension to demonstrate the relational defect:

4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Notice also that John restates and summarizes the nature of sin in the final clause of verse 10, “the one who does not love his brother”. Jesus himself grounds the ethical dimension of the law in the relational aspects, both toward God and toward human beings:

34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.
35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”
37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
38 This is the great and first commandment.
39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:34-40.

What about Paul stating that without law there is no sin? In that same letter to the Christians in Rome, Paul writes: “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10).

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior 1.1.6
  • Addressing Loneliness
  • Brief in Chiles v Salazar
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior, 1.1.5
  • Draft Brief on First Amendment Protection

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior 1.1.6
  • Addressing Loneliness
  • Brief in Chiles v Salazar
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior, 1.1.5
  • Draft Brief on First Amendment Protection

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • memoirandremains
    • Join 630 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • memoirandremains
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...