I am in the middle of reading a book about sin. (It's in preparation for a short series right before Easter. I figure that the folk at church will understand better what the resurrection is about if they understand better the problems it came to solve.) Anyway, I just finished the first chapter. This is where the author defines sin and distinguishes it from things that are not sin. And as you can appreciate, this is an important chapter. It establishes the foundation for the rest of the book. You can't talk about sin unless it's clear what you're talking about. Definitions.
However, as I read it I found myself disturbed. There was so little Scripture. There was one reference to Psalm 51 in the text and another Scriptural reference in a footnote. Now, I'm not expecting that the author would have a long list of all the verses that talk about sin and consider his work done - though I would have thought that a comment about 'sin is lawlessness' from 1 John would have shown up somewhere. That really does sound like at least part of the definition of sin. I also understand that there is to be theological reasoning and not just verse quoting. It's as we do that sort of thing that we find patterns and themes in the Scriptures. How else would the Church have established the doctrine of the Trinity? Theological reasoning. I'm fine with that. But it's supposed to be reasoning that is based on the text of the Bible. It's reasoning that looks at key verses, that looks at the words, works to understand them and then apply them to the question at hand: 'What is sin?' I didn't see this in the chapter. And it's not that the author is some amateur theologian. He has a PhD and is a former president of a seminary in the reformed and evangelical tradition.