Summary of text [comment] page 14.

In John, “lack of faith in the Son of God” is represented as “lasting sin”.

“Lasting sin” is “iniquity”.

John speaks of a “final hardening” that is a definitive turning away from the Son of God.  The “final hardening” leads to “eternal damnation”.

[Here, we have some more associations:

lasting sin; similar to “way of the flesh” : includes “denial of law^essential₃(_₂(disposition₁))” that presumes “think^group₃(_₂(conscience^lacking₁))”.

iniquity : law^essential exists despite denials. Others suffer consequences of a sinner’s transgressions.]

[What does the idea that law^essential is not limited to the sinner imply?

For one, think^group contextualizes the entire natural philosophical axis as if it were pure situation.

Similarly, law^essential (as well as law^acceptance and law^denial) contextualizes the moral religious axis as if it were pure situation.

This gives rise to two observations.

First, have you noticed that when you talk about human actions according to one axis, the other conversant often responds according to the opposed intersecting axis?

If you complain about the morals of another person’s actions, the respondent might dismiss the actions as inconsequential.  Or, if you are trying to point out the potential consequences of some action, the respondent might act offended.  You are questioning ‘his’ morals.

Second, there seems to be a sliding scale, where law^essential – the consequences of transgressions – changes as the moral religious axis changes, and visa versa.

This leads to a counter-intuitive insight.  Paul argues that, once you come to the point where you no longer deny the consequences of your transgressions, you are open to insights into think^divine that you would never have achieved in a direct manner.

Redemption is discovery.]

[The first two points are familiar.  The third point expands Paul’s views about the “flesh”.

How does it expand Paul’s views?

Could one say that “no one is unaffected by the sinner’s ‘flesh’”?

If  “denial of law^essential₃(_₂(disposition₁))” associates to  “way of the flesh”, then the “independence of law^essential from think^group” corresponds to the third point above (that all are affected by a sinner’s transgression).

The consequences of sin are not limited to the sinner, despite the sinner’s excuses, law^denial.]

Summary of text [comment] page 13.

Schoonenberg makes three points at this juncture.

Point1: John expresses the same ideas as Paul, but with greater emphasis on the end times.  The choice is ultimately for or against Christ [as a human person embodying think^divine].

Point 2: John also wrote that “sin” hardens the sinner’s “heart” and the sinner ends up living a “hard” life (Note the combo sums to “hardened heart”).

Point 3: John claimed that no one is unaffected by a sinner’s transgression.

Here is a figure that depicts the previous blog.  (One similar to 1.2J)

Summary of text [comment] page 13.

Paul sees “sin” [sin(conscience^lacking)] as preceding transgression [sin].  Every “sin” is opposed to the Holy Spirit [think^divine].  “Sin” hardens the “heart” [think₃(₂(conscience₁))].  See Eph 4:3; Rom 8:14 and Gal 5:19-21.

He who lives in “sin” is “carnal” and “of the flesh” [denying law^essential₃(appeasing₂(dispositions₁))].

The concept of “flesh” is the summary of “what man is under sin”.

[As indicated with the brackets interspersing the summary of the text, elements of the intersecting nested forms parallel Paul’s comments.

Two words have powerful associations:

“heart” : think₃(_₂(conscience₁))

The “heart” is purely theoretical in this association.  That is, think₃(_₂(conscience₁) is a purely theoretical concept.  It cannot become actual unless specified.

“Heart” is concrete only when specified in a super-ego or tautological fashion.

A “hardened heart” is think^group₃(_₂( conscience^lacking₁).

An “open heart” is think^divine₃(_₂(conscience^free₁).

“flesh” : a denial of law^essential₃(_₂(disposition₁))

The “flesh” has multiple associations.  “Flesh” presumes a think^group and conscience^lacking that facilitates sins that emerge from one’s dispositions.  “Flesh” denies the consequences (law^essential) of those sinful acts as well as appeases the dispositions.  “The denial of law^essential₃” puts the transgression into context.

Of course, law^essential remains “what it is” as the consequences or contextualization of the transgressions.  It cannot be articulated in the symbolic order of the think^group.]

[Before going back to text, I want to note that I have adopted a format of “summary of text [comment] page number”.   The text is very dense.  Some paragraphs are like scrolls that unroll the moment that you set eyes on them.

Here is the fine print:

The date corresponds to the year the imprimatur was given for orginal Dutch version by J. Terpstra S.J., Praep. Prov. Neerl.

The page numbers are from the 1965 edition of Man and Sin: A Theological View, published by Notre Dame Press.

Imprimatur for English translation was given in 1965 by Timothy A. Jurtin S.J., Vice Provincial, New York.]

[Why can’t think^group recognize the natural consequences of the transgressions that it contextualizes?

Why can’t think^group resist the wants and needs that fuel the transgressions?

In short, why is think^group blind to law^essential and unaware of their facilitation of unruly dispositions?

I am not sure.  It may have something to do with the exclusivity of symbolic orders. Each think^group lives in its own bubble.

In contrast, law^essential is, what it is, irrespective of think^group and conscience^lacking.]

[And what about the consequences?

Death (the ultimate consequence, I suppose, found in law^essential) contextualizes transgressions in natural and philosophical terms that are alien to the moral and religious terms of think^group.

Think^group cannot recognize the unintended consequences of its social constructions nor can acknowledge the passions (dispositions) driving them.

Think^divine can.  It exists in parallel to think^group. It is not in denial when it comes to recognizing the consequences of one’s actions.]

[Even more disturbing, while conscience^lacking plays games on conscience^free, a similar drama also plays out on an intersubjective scale in the relation between think^group and think^divine.

Think^group seems to not be aware (or pretends so) that, by justifying sinful acts, it appeals to one’s dispositions in wanton ways.  Instead of training the dispositions, think^group fires them up.  Think^group justifies and explains seeking pleasure and avoiding pain in moral and religious terms.]