The Reductionism of Sin - Part 1

I keep finding among people a “reductionism” regarding what “sin” is. Let me say it more clearly, perhaps: I keep noticing that people “water down” what “sin” really is. Let me explain why I think this keeps happening . . .

First, there is an ignorance regarding the holy scriptures. Many people have a wispy, vapory view of what “sin” is – of course, they wouldn't say that! Most people “know” – they claim to anyway! – what “sin” is. But, here's the problem: I keep finding people that don't know the holy scriptures but somehow really “know” what “sin” is. I think that's a problem.

Second, there is an ignorance regarding “sin,” itself. Most of the people that I run into think that “sin” is merely a “transgression of the law.” I suppose, on one level, that's not wrong – after all, the NT comes right out and says that in a case or two (cf. Rom. 4:15; 1 Jn. 3:4). But, the NT doesn't pretend to say that “sin” only “occurs” or “exists” when an explicitly-stated text is broken. In fact, I hear the Master saying quite the opposite (Mat. 15:18-20), and I hear Paul saying, “Amen!” to that (cf. Rom. 14:21-23; Gal. 5:19-21).

Third, there is an ignorance of being ignorant. I suppose this point undergirds the two former points. But, ultimately, I'm saying that there is a problem, here, with human pride. We want to say that we know God's revelation, and we want to say that we know what “sin” is (or, should I say, “we know what 'sins' are” [as if “sin” can be reduced to a list of bad behaviors and actions]). Nobody wants to admit ignorance . . . but, maybe, in order to avoid the “reductionism,” the “watering down” of “sin,” that's exactly where we need to start . . .

Let's see if we can't embellish these points more in another piece . . .