We asked this question last week and invited you to respond. There were several brave souls who pondered aloud, with not a few differences in opinions. See last week's post and see the comments (either on my "Notes" in Facebook or on http://colbykinser.blogspot.com).
Many noted that God created us with the freedom to choose. Certainly, without the freedom to choose, then our glorification of God is empty, the praise of mere automatons. But with the freedom to choose also comes the ability to sin - the ability to do something against God's will. Without freedom to choose, sin is impossible. True, but freedom to choose brings the ability to sin, not necessarily the desire to sin. Freedom does not explain the origin of the desire to sin.
Also, many noted that the desire to sin came from the desire to be independent from God or to be equal to God. These are, in fact, root issues with sin. Certainly, if we did not desire to be independent from God, a vast majority of sin would never occur (if not all of it - just playing it cautious, here). But this does not explain the origin of the desire to sin - it merely describes it in more detail. The desire to be independent from God is itself the desire to sin, so we can't explain the origin of something by describing it in better detail. Where did the original desire come from?
One mentioned a lust for power, which is similar to a desire to be independent from God. Likewise, it describes sin, but doesn't describe it's origin.
Another argued that man invented sin - that it does not exist as an objective reality, but is merely culturally defined. However, I have asked this particular contributor a number of times to answer the question, "It is always wrong to torture babies for fun?" To date, that contributor has not answered this question. I find it untenable to suggest that this particular example is only sinful if a particular society says so (as if any society ever agreed on right and wrong in the first place).
A few noted the very human habit of wanting something merely because it is forbidden. That is certainly the case with us today, in many cases. But I'm not sure that this is a universal attribute of humanity, and it's also not clear if that was a factor in Eden. Yes, Eve wanted the fruit, but it's not necessarily the case that she wanted it because it was forbidden. So, this remains a viable answer, but hard to establish definitively.
A tandem team offered the idea that the desire to sin comes from a longing for God. This is most intriguing - explaining sin by means of the goodness of creation. This would mean that man was created without sin and without a pure desire to sin. Rather, he was, as Scripture states, created pure and uniquely fashioned in the image of God. That imago Dei (image of God) makes us uniquely capable of a relationship with God and uniquely capable of worshiping Him (we are the only creatures to have theology and doxology, which I cannot fully attribute to mere higher brain function). We were created with a unique capacity and longing for God. We are also uniquely capable of sin. Is there a connection?
It has been argued, and I tend to agree, that all sin can be boiled down to fulfilling God-given desires with God-forbidden means. For example, the sin of acting on one's lust is a misguided effort to fulfill the God-given need for love and companionship. The sin of theft is a misguided attempt to fill the need for the security that is only really found in God. Is it possible, then, that the desire to sin originates from a godly desire, and more specifically, a desire for God?
Eve wanted good things: food, attractive things, and wisdom. That was her desire, and they were godly things to desire. However, she was deceived into pursuing them in ways God had forbidden. Her desire was not a desire to defy God or drive Him away. But she pursued her longing for God in a way that He had prescribed against.
And let's not let Adam off the hook - it's not all Eve's fault. Romans 5 gives the blame to Adam, not Eve, because of his failure in his duties as husband (which is an entirely different topic, discussed in earlier posts).
And it all went downhill from there. Once Man had fallen, his desires fell, too. Now, his desires were as vandalized as the imago Dei he bore. Now the desire to sin would be inherent - human desire was corrupt (except for the Sinless One, who bore human flesh but was without sin).
But, you might observe that Satan fell before Man. How do we explain his desire to sin? We do not have any real, detailed description of these events (despite our over-reliance on Dante for theology). So, we can't really know, but I would venture a guess that we would find a similar origin.
Now ... this is my opinion. Please don't take this as indisputable theology. Actually, once the question came up, I've been shocked by the fact that I've yet to find any scholarly work on this particular question. It may be out there, and I've not spent a lot of time hunting, but it's not readily available in the standard works I refer to. But short of saying that the desire to sin preceded the Fall, which would conflict with all kinds of orthodox doctrine, this is about the only way that I've seen that makes any sense.
Feel free to comment, disagree, propose alternate theories. It's an interesting question, in my opinion. (I would be particularly curious to hear what the tandem team has to say - does this summarize what you were thinking, or does your point go in a different direction?)
Posts
