On Sin and Free Choice: Theological Commonplaces by Johann Gerhard

Author:Johann Gerhard [Gerhard, Johann]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780758638366
Publisher: Concordia Publishing House
Published: 2014-06-23T00:00:00+00:00

Does an exterior act of sin possess its own badness?

§ 79. This concludes our discussion about corrupt concupiscence in the reborn (which is the hidden sin which God places in the light of His countenance, Ps. 90:8) and about interior sins in general.

Exterior sins consist of gestures or words or deeds according to the explanation of the Fifth Commandment given by Christ (Matt. 5:21–22). The Scholastics here ask: “Does an exterior act which is commanded by the will have its own proper goodness or badness because of which it is imputed as sin more than an interior act of the will alone?” Scotus (Quodlib., q. 18) answers in the affirmative and relies upon these foundations: “(1) These acts are forbidden by distinct commandments: the exterior in the Seventh, but the interior in the Tenth. (2) The integrity of the things that, according to right reason, ought to agree with the interior act is one thing, and [the integrity] of those which should agree with the exterior is another. (3) An interior and an exterior act are simultaneously punished more severely than one by itself.”

However, Biel (Sent., 2, dist. 42, q. 1), following Occam (Quodlib., 1, q. 1, q. 20; Quodlib., 3, q. 14), and Gregory of Rimini deny it. “For the goodness would either be the exterior act itself or something added. It is not the first, because the same exterior act can at first be evil and later good; and it cannot be the second, because the additional thing could be nothing except the respect for the conformity and dependency of the exterior act upon the interior act, obviously because it is elicited in conformity with the interior act. But this respect also conforms to the act of natural causes, such as if the will were to command that fire draw near to candles.” From this Biel (art. 2) draws a further conclusion:

There is no interior operation of the will with the exterior that is more meritorious or well-deserving than the interior alone and without a deliberate exterior act, namely, while the equality of the interior act continues to stand. For instance, a man who wants to kill and does kill is worthy of no greater punishment before God than if he were to wish to kill but did not kill, supposing that his intent was equally complete, because a man earns no greater reward because of his will and work than another man because of an equal will without the act. Otherwise, a man, without his will, could become of greater merit or demerit through someone else, since it could be hindered.

In art. 3 he adds: “A man sins more extensively with a concomitant exterior act than with a merely inner intent because he sins with more sins, for an evil inner will is as much a sin as even a deliberate exterior act.”

Thomas ([ST,] 1.2., q. 19, art. 3) makes this distinction: “As an interior and exterior act are considered in the genus of conduct” (as moral acts), “they are a single act.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.