|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Man does not know in what rank to place himself.
He has plainly gone astray and fallen from his true place
without being able to find it again.
Man is not worthy of God,
but he is not incapable of being made worthy.
It would be unworthy of God to unite himself
to wretched man as he is;
but it is not unworthy of God
to pull man out of his misery.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Because of the seeming triviality of God's command to Adam, regarding the fruit of the tree of the know ledge of good-and-evil some have missed the overwhelming significance of man's lostness. The immensity of the evil and the sinfulness of the sin of man's rebellion, however, cannot be overlooked. For the creature to negate the Creator in even the smallest issue is utterly destructive to life and reality. This is dramatically illustrated by the consequences of Adam's sin for the race—utter ruin, and the cost to God—beyond calculation. As Carl Henry observes:
The terrible self-cost to God of the forgiveness of men's sins—a mercy not extended to Satan, and the wicked angels—is something Adam and Eve could scarcely have fathomed: in giving his Son, God gives himself in our stead. The holy Creator offers forgiveness only on the ground of retribution, a retribution that at one and the same time is an act of both perfect righteousness and pure grace; such an act only God himself can provide. [i]
The horror of man's lostness is captured by Francis Schaeffer when he writes, "Man is lost because he is separated from God, his true reference point, by true moral guilt. But he will never be nothing. Therein lies the horror of his lostness. For man to be lost in all his uniqueness and wonder, is tragic." [ii] Charles Hodge has captured the same truth as he says, "Every man should bow down before God under the humiliating consciousness that he is a member of an apostate race; the son of a rebellious parent; born estranged from God, and exposed to his displeasure." [iii]
But why does the concept of the sinfulness of sin continue to be virtually meaningless for modern man in the face of its widespread devastation? Recognizing that many factors contribute to the situation, George Forell suggests three items of significant enough proportion to mention.
The first he calls "the general mood of relativism." [iv] This is the view that there are no such things as absolute standards, no "right" or "wrong" in the final sense of the term. Morality is simply a matter of social or cultural convention and any decisions about what is right or wrong are arbitrary. Yet, as Forell notes, "No amount of statistics can change the facts that lying will make human communication eventually impossible and that homosexual behavior is sterile and if consistently and exclusively practiced dooms the human race to extinction." [v] God does have absolute standards as set forth in the Bible and reflected in all of reality around us whether they are acknowledged as such or not. Furthermore, this approach to life, which does offer modern man an escape from the seriousness of sin, is self-contradictory. In propounding that there are no absolutes it does so by declaring an absolute.
The second thing he mentions is naturalism. “Here we have the assertion that all knowledge, even moral knowledge, is empirical." [vi] From a pragmatic standpoint this puts man on the level of the brute creation. Since animals have no moral accountability for their actions, that is, while hurtful they may not be viewed as sinful, neither does man. "If man is merely an animal it is no more reasonable to try him for his offenses, to blame him for his sins, than it would be to try a rattlesnake for striking, to blame a cat for chasing mice, a mouse for stealing cheese." [vii] As we have seen previously, God has fixed a great gulf between man and animal by creating him in his own image and by charging him with moral accountability. Nonetheless, by following the naturalistic philosophy people have emptied sin of any meaning.
Forell's third point relates to "superficial psychologizing and psychoanalyzing which have become part of our civilization.” [viii] For example, B. F. Skinner with his own form of behavioristic theory has reduced human behavior to a fatalistic determinism, and thus emptied morality of all meaning. On the other hand, Sigmund Freud and many of his heirs viewed religion as the result of the Oedipus complex and related to false feelings of guilt that are destructive of human development and fulfillment. Thus, "religion is 'neurotic' and prayer is "compulsive.” All feelings of guilt and the consciousness of sin are considered dangerous." [ix] Despite the patent spuriousness of this kind of denial of reality it has greatly influenced contemporary thinking regarding sin.
To all of this there needs to be added the divine testimony as to why man persists in denying sin's sinfulness. The biblical writers gave us two basic reasons, one relating to the God of reality and the other to the god of this age. “An oracle is within my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked," the psalmist says, "there is no fear of God before his eyes." Paul declares, "... the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor. 4:4). Without such light the meaning of sin is at best obscured. As Forell concludes, "However successful modern man may have been in denying the existence of sin, he has been spectacularly unsuccessful in avoiding its consequences." [x]
"As we look about us, we see that…. sin is a universal problem. History testifies to this fact in its accounts of priesthood and sacrifices among the cultures of the world." [xi] But the most eloquent witness to the universality of sin is the biblical record.
Sin is the failure to measure up to his potential at a particular point in the evolutionary process. Thus it is related, to ignorance. Since it is an inevitable stage in man’s development, an inherent part of his being, there is no relation to a fall or rebellion and hence no pollution or guilt. It will ultimately be eliminated.
It is the result of a metaphysical imperfection in man. That is, because of the fact that man is a creature he is therefore finite and imperfect in the absolute sense of the term (Leibniz and Spinoza). It is thus a necessary thing and unavoidable. This view confuses the distinction between the physical and moral realms. It assumes that because man was created with physical limitation he was likewise created with moral limitations, which, however, does not necessarily follow.
This is based on philosophical dualism which holds to evil and good as eternally existent, the one represented in man by the body and the other by the spirit. Thus man is a sinner because of the kind of creature that he is, namely, one with a material body and its accompanying appetites.
This is a commonly held error "but the senses are not in themselves sources of sin, though they frequently become the instruments of the carnal nature in the commission of sin" (Thiessen, op. cit., p. 178). This doctrine has led to what Thiessen calls "various absurd practices" (ibid., p. 179) such as asceticism in which all bodily comforts are eschewed and certain austere patterns of life are maintained.
This sense of sin arises when an awareness of God awakens within him and he realizes that his lower (sensuous) nature is opposed to such an awareness. It is a sense of inadequacy and imperfection rather than actual inadequacy (Schleiermacher).
While the preceding attempts to explain the character of sin suffer from being contrary to scripture the following each capture some biblical truth but turn a part into the whole.
That is, it is the consequence of his inclination to usurp the prerogatives of God. It is his refusal to admit his finiteness (creatureliness). Man is a creature of two spheres of existence—the divine or spiritual and the natural or animal. As a result he has certain ideals which he is incapable of attaining which, in turn, creates a state of tension or anxiety. This provides the setting for sin. When he attempts to break this tension or escape this anxiety he sins. Thus, sin is the result of dissatisfaction. If he yields to his lower nature his sin takes the form of lust and when he yields to the higher nature it takes the form of pride. (Niebuhr). [xii]
Sin is a revolt, a negation of our God-given destiny as expressed in a desire to be like God, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, it is distrust of God, manifested in a fear of losing something by obedience to God, rooted in self-love (Brunner).
Forell expresses this idea with yet e little different twist. He declares, "Sin is man's revolt against God." [xiii] This revolt expresses itself psychologically as price (hybris) and theologically as unbelief. For the Christian, hybris means that man, who is created to live his life in grateful dependence upon God, who is supposed 'to fear, love and trust God above all things,’ this man believes that he can manage without God." [xiv] At the same time, "because man does not believe in God, because he believes in that which is not God, he is a sinner." [xv]
It is the choice of the evil, the selfish, etc., rather than of the good, loving, etc. Thus it is limited to overt acts wherein the will comes into play. This view rejects the concept of original sin. The only sense in which corruption is allowed is as a result of wrong choice end the only sense in which universality of sin is acknowledged is in that every individual has a certain propensity toward evil end actually experiences such wrong choices. This arises from the example of others which may be traced back to Adam (Finney, et. al.).
This view arises from a misunderstanding of the statement that sin is transgression of law. It assumes that law has man's social dealings only or primarily in view. (1 John 3:4 should not be understood as reference to the Mosaic law but to law in general as an expression of God's will.)
This explanation has the same weakness as the preceding view except it limits sin to the spiritual rather than to the ethical. Also, sin is not only transgression of law; it likewise includes any lack of conformity to God's law.
It is self-preference and self-love over against love for God. This is more nearly an essential statement. It omits, however, the element of opposition to God and His will.
This is the viewpoint set forth by Thiessen as he writes, "Scripture teaches that the essence of godliness is love of God; is not the essence of sin the love of self?" [xvi] e supports this judgment by appealing to “… the fact that, all the forms of sin can be traced to selfishness as their source." [xvii]
Stephen Charnock stated long ago that “all sin whatsoever is built upon some false notion or monstrous conception of one or other of God’s perfections….” [xviii] Similarly, J. O. Buswell defines sin as anything in the creature that does not express, or which is contrary to, the holy character of the Creator." [xix] Donald Bloesch states, "Sin, in the biblical perspective, is both an act and a state. It entails separation from God as well as a deliberate violation of his will." [xx] Later on he offers a definition as follows: “Sin can be defined in relation to both the Law and the Gospel: it is a transgression of the divine commandment and a violation of God's love as revealed in Christ."[xxi] A. H. Strong (followed by Louis Berkhof [xxii]) defines sin as '' lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition or state." [xxiii]
An adequate statement must relate the concepts of a lack of conformity to and transgression of God's law (better, revealed will; Chafer suggests "character" but this, too, may be misleading if it be construed as including the essential character) to the concept of selfishness. However, selfishness is better expressed as self-assertion or self-deification rather than as mere self-preference, self-centeredness, or self-love. That is, it is selfishness in the sense of the attempt to place oneself in the position of God that is the essence of sin.
i. chatha - To miss the mark; sin.
i. 'avah - Wrong; to be bent or crooked; refers to perversion or distortion of nature caused by evil-doing
ii. 'aval - Iniquity; refers to the want of integrity and rectitude which accompanies wrong-doing.
iii. 'avar - Transgression
iv. ra' - Evil; wicked; seems to signify breaking-up or --- ruin; note: this word is not limited in usage to moral evil.
v. pasha' - Rebellion; to refuse subjection to rightful authority.
vi. rasha' - Wickedness; wicked and guilty departure from the law.
vii. ma'al - Breach of trust; points to the unfaithfulness and treachery of sin.
viii. aven - Vanity (nothingness).
ix. ashm - Guilt; implies a breach of commandment, wrought without due consideration, and which, when brought to the notice of the offender, calls for amends or atonement.
i. agnoēma - Error (Heb. 9:7); ignorance (not willful) of what should have been known.
ii. adikia - Absence of righteousness (1 John 1:9; 5:17).
iii. hamartia - A missing of the mark; a failure to arrive at the goal; sin (Rom. 5:12).
iv. anomia - Lawlessness; non-observance of law (1 John 3:4).
v. anupotakos - Not subject to rule (1 Tim. 1:9).
vi. apeitheia - Disobedience (Eph. 2:2)
vii. asebeia - Ungodliness; positive and active irreligion (Rom. 1:18); withholding that which is due God (Titus 2:12).
viii. hēttēma - Fault; fall; lack or less than a full measure (1 Cor. 6:7).
ix. kakia - Wickedness; depravity (Rom. 1:29).
x. parabasis - Stepping over a line, deviation (Rom. 5:14).
xi. parakē - Disobedience of a voice (Rom. 5:19).
xii. paranomia - Law-breaking (2 Pet. 2:16).
xiii. paraptōma - Fall; a falling when an upright position should have been maintained (Gal. 6:1).
xiv. planē - A going astray; error (Rom. 1:27).
xv. ponēria - Evil; iniquity; malignancy; that which is actively contrary to God's will (1 Cor. 5: i 8).
An examination of the biblical terms shows that the emphasis is not upon bodily actions but spiritual matters. Its center is in the immaterial part of man.
It is that which fails to meet the absolute standard set before man. Note the number of words in the New Testament developed by the use of alpha privative (a form of negative in Greek; e.g., anomia, adikia, etc.). Negatively, it denies that which is true-of-God. Positively it is in active opposition to God.
The wide variety of forms it takes is indicated by the proliferation of words. One or a few is not enough.
Not all evil is sin. Sin is moral evil (as over against physical evil such as floods, earthquakes, droughts, etc.). It is not fundamentally passive but active.
That is, there are no gradations between good and evil; no neutral (cf. James 2:10).
The question is, what law does John have in mind when he says, “sin is lawlessness"? The answer must be the law of God's righteous character, that ultimate principle by which all righteousness and justice is determined. Thiessen addresses this (as he paraphrases Charles Hodge [xxiv]) when he says that this law
is not (1) our reason, for then every man is a law unto himself and then there can be no sense of guilt; (2) the moral order of the universe, for this is but an abstraction and can neither impose obligation nor inflict penalty (3) regard for the happiness of the universe, for it is manifest that happiness is not necessarily synonymous with goodness; (4) our own happiness, for such a view makes expedience the rule of right and wrong; but (5) that it is subjection to the rule of a rational being, God, who is infinite, eternal, and immutable in his perfections. [xxv]
It includes guilt (liability to punishment which relates, to God's justice) and pollution (corruption of nature which relates to God's holiness), as well (Rom. 3:19; 5:18; Jer. 17:9; Eph. 4:17-19).
Sin has its residence in the heart (in the sense that it is the center of one's life and personality). Thus it is not limited to one particular faculty or part of one's being such as the will or the body. Rather, it influences all of man.
Sin is a lack of conformity to God's revealed will, the willful refusal by the creature of God to hold the Creator and his expressed will (moral law) by faith as the center and sphere of life, and the 8attempted establishment of the creature himself as an independent being.
[i] C. F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, VI, 249
[ii] Francis Schaeffer, Escape From Reason, p. 90
[iii] Charles Hodge, Commentary to the Epistle of the Romans, p. 137
[iv] George Forell, The Protestant Faith, p. 159
[v] Ibid., p. 160
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Ibid., p. 161
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid., p. 162
[x] Ibid., p. 163
[xi] H. C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, revised, p. 185
[xii] See also Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I, 97
[xiii] Forell, op. cit., p. 133
[xiv] Ibid., p. 134
[xv] Ibid. p. 136
[xvi] Thiessen, op. cit., p. 174
[xvii] Ibid.
[xviii] Stephen Charnock, Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God, II, 92
[xix] J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, I, 264
[xx] Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I, 93
[xxi] Ibid., p. 97
[xxii] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 223
[xxiii] A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 283
[xxiv] Hodge, op. cit., II, 182- 83
[xxv] Thiessen, op. cit., p. 172
|
Copyright © 2007 by
AncientPath Network
and the authors. All rights reserved. |
12.11.07
