Introduction

Plantinga has written a useful volume that explores the nature and depths of sin.  This article will explain the major areas of difference between the author’s views as described in his book and my own views where they differ from his.  It is necessary to limit the scope of this article to areas of disagreement as there is much more with which I agree in this book than disagree and the scope of the assignment does not afford sufficient space to delve into matters with which the author and I agree.  Thus, the major points with which I take exception to the author’s views shall make up the bulk of this article.

The Concept of Shalom

Apart from his initial premise that sin is that which vandalizes the author’s concept of “shalom,” (p. 10) which premise strikes something of a false note, in my view, the book delivers what its author intends, a summary of sin.  My concern with the author’s premise is that it seems fanciful.  It looks more like an effort to discover some slightly new way of understanding sin than it does uncovering or revisiting a heretofore neglected truth.

Plantinga’s suggestion that sin should be seen as an affront to God on the basis of its attack against “shalom” (p. 16) is not strictly a biblical concept.  Like Piper who argues for the virtues of Christian Hedonism[1] (also not a strictly biblical concept), or Blackaby who argues that the Christian’s mission in life is to find out where God is at work and join Him there[2] (again, not a strictly biblical concept), Plantinga argues that sin is the vice of attacking shalom.  All three of these books, each in their own way, grasp at novelty rather than authenticity in their attempt to impart truth.  I do not fault them for their effort, only for their result.  After all, being fresh and interesting is what we expect of writers, even Christian writers.  But this is not a concern over style.  It is a concern for substance.  The authors of these books look for new and interesting ways to define, or redefine, eternal truth.  They even seem to believe that they have, in fact, discovered some new approaches to their subjects that have been overlooked for centuries.  They should rather have gone directly to the truth they wished to impart rather than to construct an imaginary stage on which to display their expositions.

Now, to my point.  Sin is an affront to God because it is rebellion against Him.  This is not to say that the concept of shalom, as suggested by Plantinga, is invalid.  Rather, sin as an attack on shalom is a legitimate way of looking at and analyzing sin, but it is not, itself, the foundational truth regarding the essence of sin, as he implies.  Plantinga hopes the novelty of his concept will perhaps catch the imagination and allow him room to explore sin more thoroughly.  On this point, I concede, the concept has value, but only for analytical purposes, not for accurately defining sin.  “Breach of shalom” (p. 24) is a novel concept and not without some foundation, but it does not hit the mark squarely and is not, thus, foundational truth.

Defining Sin

Plantinga, at times, equates a bent toward or propensity for a particular sin as actual sin.  I disagree that sin can be so defined.  He references the “seven deadly sins” (pp. 22-23) in his discussion of objective and subjective sin as examples of actual sins.  But, in reality, these so-called “sins” are more likely sinful predispositions and not themselves sins.  Sin for which people are culpable, a frequent theme in the early chapters of the book, must necessarily involve either an action or inaction.  The mere presence of the sin nature does not constitute culpability in the sinner.  Only when the sinner actually sins does culpability come into the equation.  Temptation is not sin and is not held to the sinner’s account.  Sins are held to the sinner’s account.

I would argue that a bent toward pride, for example, is not a sin until it acts pridefully.  Dormant pride is waiting to sin, even itching to sin, but is not itself sin.  Dormant pride is evidence of the fallen nature of man, for every heart of man harbors pride.  But, pride restrained is virtue, not vice.  The apostle Paul insisted that sin resided in him and that that sin was present against his will, through no fault of his own. (Romans 7:14-25)  Paul recognized that the evil present in him became a problem for God when Paul gave life to it.  God does not punish sin which resides in the flesh of the believer.

God has already dealt with the issue of original sin, which Plantinga spends little time on, but well describes as “spiritual AIDS” (pp.32-33).  As for the issue of culpable sin, especially for the converted and saved true believer, original sin is not in view.  Sinful acts are in view, and it is sinful acts, not the fallen nature, which are culpable before God.

The Sin and Sin Nature Distinction

We must distinguish between sin which resides in the sinner and the sin which is perpetrated but the sinner.  Are both culpable before God?  I suggest not.  Consider that Christ covers our sins and reconciles us to God.  The sin which resides in us no longer separates us from God, nor will it be judged, for it has been atoned and removed from us.  However, sinful acts committed by the saved do have consequences somewhat similar to uncovered original sin in that the sins of the saved still have the power to separate us from God, after a fashion.  They separate the saved from God in the sense that intimacy with God is hindered and even destroyed when the saved sin.

The rebellious child loses intimacy with her parents until reconciliation occurs through discipline and repentance.  In this way, it can be argued that such sin is judged.  Only such judgment does not end in the saved sinner’s being removed from the presence of God for eternity.  The judgment which befalls the sins of the saved is discipline in the present life and the destruction of them as wood, hay, and stubble in the next.

Culpability implies more than fault.  It implies blameworthiness.  It is certainly true that man is entitled to eternal separation from God because of original sin precisely because God is holy and cannot hold fellowship with darkness.  However, culpability, as the author seems to define it, must be reserved for sinful acts, not simply for being in a state of sinfulness as a result of original sin.

The Author’s Liberal Political Views

Plantinga appears to betray a liberal political attitude that tends toward anti-Semitism.  He attacks the motives of Israeli leader, Menachem Begin, by insisting that he operated largely out of a victim’s mentality and then dismisses his military contributions to the safety of the state of Israel by comparing his enthusiasm to Bernhard Goetz, convicted slayer of would-be New York City subway muggers (pp. 57-58).

Next, Plantinga blurs the lines of right and wrong by laying too much blame on society and environment and what they can produce in the heart of criminals, mitigating their culpability (p. 59).  He, in effect, says “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter.”  But, terrorism attacks innocents, not soldiers.

Later, (p. 64) Plantinga argues that a fallen society is culpable for sin being added to sin within it.  But, people sin because they are sinners, not because they are in a society that sins or creates an environment where sin is likely to occur and thrive.  Thus, sinners, not society, are culpable for their actions.  Society is made up of sinners who sin.  All people are sinners and all people, given the opportunity of even brief life, will sin.  Plantinga plays with percentages of culpability when it comes to society and environment versus individuals who sin (p. 65).  But, it is individuals who sin and those same individuals who are culpable for their sins.  As Ezekiel shows, “the soul that sins, it shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:4 ff)  All of “our evil is chargeable to us” when we sin (p. 65), not merely percentages.

Plantinga also sees all violence as sin (p. 60).  He equates just expressions of power and the use of force with sin.  He prefers that people and nations seek to understand each other’s points of view and that failure to do so is sin.  I argue that it is the sinful behavior on the part of people and nations that brings them to blows.  The playground bully is not interested in sitting down and trying to understand his victims’ feelings and motives, nor are they his.  The only right response to a bully is “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” (Leviticus 24:20)  When the bully’s sinful behavior finally costs him something, especially the loss of a bloodless and pain free afternoon on the playground, then he reconsiders his own motives and feelings. Military might exercised in the interests of those nations who wield it is not necessarily evil.  Military might is often God’s answer to sin.  God does not try to understand national sin, but judges, condemns and uses His superior force to punish it.

The Concept of Shalom Eased

As the book progresses, the author makes more effective use of the theme of “shalom” (p. 88) when he occasionally reintroduces it, because he does so with less force than at the beginning of the book.  After some time to reflect on the author’s use of the concept and how that use subtly changes as the book moves along, it is easier to see its best use as a concept that expresses life, in the broader context, without sin, rather than the author’s denotative use of the concept as that against which evil attacks and is, thus, defined as sin.  Sin, of course, is not precisely that which attacks the author’s concept of shalom, but that which rebels against God.  Finally, Plantinga gets his definition of sin right; sin is not an entity, but rebellion (p. 89).

More Liberalism

The middle chapters of the book are insightful and largely descriptive.  In them, I found little with which to disagree.  However, when Plantinga takes up the silence of the church during the horrors of Nazi Germany (pp.179-180), he argues that there are legitimate circumstances in which ordinary people can do the unthinkable, even in opposition to their own strongly held convictions about right and wrong.

Plantinga shows that the tendency toward obedience to authority in societal structures becomes confusing and reaches a climax of proportion when the soul screams in protest against evils it is commanded to perpetrate.  Yet the catatonic will, like that of the proverbial frog in the pot of boiling water, has discovered too late its predicament and presses on in obedience.  While true, this nonetheless fails to absolve German Christians of culpability for their inaction.  Their failure is their sin.  Better to do right and die, than to preserve life through sin.  (John 12:25)

The point here is that even the sinful nature of the author rears its head as he, a sinner just like me, tries to make excuses for sin.  C. S. Lewis points out that there is a universal understanding of sin written in the hearts of all men.[3]  He notes that when someone transgresses that universally understood law, his first response is not to deny that the law is right and good, but to either deny he has transgressed it or that his transgression of it is somehow acceptable in the present instance given this or that mitigating circumstance.  The author should not try to mitigate culpability, as doing so undercuts the object of his endeavor, to offer a summary of sin.

Conclusion

In conclusion, my issues with the author regard, more or less, his use of novelty as a context in which to explore sin and his definition of culpable sin.  Beyond these, however, the author is effective in examining many of the facets of his subject.  His treatment of sin is thorough, insightful and accurate, though not exhaustive and flawless.  It is, as he states, a breviary, and a good one.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. Nashville: Macmillan Publishing, 1980.

Blackaby, Henry, Richard Blackaby and Claude King. Experiencing God: Knowing and Doing the Will of God. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2008.

Piper, John. Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 2003.

[1] John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 2003).

[2] Henry Blackaby, Richard Blackaby and Claude King, Experiencing God: Knowing and Doing the Will of God (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2008).

[3] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Nashville: Macmillan Publishing, 1980), 17-21.