Chapter 10 - The Christian View of Sin
The Christian View of Sin
Man may think that he can and should be gracious to himself, but this is impossible. He thinks and acts as his own helper, but believing that he is his own best friend he is all the time his own worst enemy. Barth, Church Dogmatics At the same time that sinfulness in human life is always defined as volitional, it also appears to faith in the form of a demonic spiritual power which commands and subjugates the human will. The solidary interrelationship of sin concretizes itself in inscrutable and obscure powers, a mysterious complex which cannot be accurately delimited and defined, and which slips away and becomes shadowy as soon as one tries to grasp and comprehend it. Aulen, The Faith of the Christian Church Since ... the concept of sin always has reference to man as a whole, and furthermore, since God’s judgment on sin is always an unconditional and radical rejection, in the presence of God it is meaningless to differentiate between serious sins which entail serious guilt and lesser sins which cause lesser guilt. The consciousness of guilt and the awareness of our own unworthiness do not become weaker because a sin, according to human estimation, is less serious. In this connection there is in reality no place for a graduation of sins as greater or lesser. Aulen, The Faith of the Christian Church A theologian should be able to write meaningfully on the subject of sin, for this is the common experience of all mankind, whether it is acknowledged or not. The doctrine of sin is surrounded with two extremes. Sin can be regarded as insignificant in light of God’s great love. Thereby one can wipe out all meaning for the basic facts of the gospel; i.e., the atonement in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, man can be regarded as being so vitiated with sin that he does nothing that is noble or good by human standards. We hope to avoid both positions. Christian faith, by the nature of its message, places great emphasis on the doctrine of sin. The gospel is a message declaring how God has "put away" sin. The gospel is God’s answer to man’s rebellion.
Why Is SinSin? On what basis can one speak of certain things as sin? There have been many diverse ideas promoted. Sin has been defined as: (1) a violation of community custom, which ultimately may be right or wrong; ( 2) an illusion, in which case it does not exist; ( 3 ) ignorance, in which case education would be able to eradicate it; (4) the manifestation of the beast-nature of man, in which case he should not be blamed for it as it is a part of his nature; ( 5 ) nonexistent, in which case one should not worry about it; and ( 6) a violation of conscience, which cannot be separated from its upbringing and thus is unreliable. There is no basis for talking about sin, however, "except in a religious sense. The significance of the knowledge of sin can be known only as divine revelation illuminates the fact of sin."1 In this regard when one talks about ethical standards there are ultimately only two great ethical systems that oppose the Christian viewpoint. There is, first, the naturalistic view which starts with the fact of existence and seeks to explain morality on the basis of natural facts. "Right" is a summary of the conclusions of experience. Thus the right is that which has proved useful to mankind in his community experience. Naturalism in its approach to living cannot ask the question of what one ought to do. "Morality--as generally understood--only begins where the natural instinct breaks down, that is, where one ’ought’ to do what one does not want to do. The choice before the naturalistic moralist is either to deny the existence of such a ’sense of ought’ or to give up his Naturalism."2 Fortunately, many naturalists are not wholly consistent in this matter, for while they deny God, they hold a humanist outlook in ethics. The opposing system, (the second one) is some form of idealism involving duty for duty’s sake. "An act is not good if I do it because I like doing it, but only if I do it because I ought to do it, because I ’may’ not do otherwise."3 This ethic involves three concepts: The right may be known to reason and is not acquired from revelation; the right as known by reason must be binding on everyone without exception and this involves the idea of universal validity; and it must be able to tell everyone what one must do in particular cases.4 There are two major criticisms of the last view, which is ascribed to Immanuel Kant. First, it seems to equate the reasonable thing to do, or duty, with the law of nature which does not tell one what he ought to do. Second, there is concealed a principle which is contrary to the established standard of reason, and that is the standard of happiness : "Act in such a way that if everyone were to act as you do, a happy human society would result."5 Opposing these two great systems in one form or another is the Christian ethic based upon the biblical assertions. "What God does and wills is good; all that opposes the will of God is bad. The Good has its basis and its existence solely in the will of God."6 The holiness of God is the basis for the good. "The Good is that which God does; the goodness of man can be no other than letting himself be placed within the activity of God."7 The Christian ethic is universal in its positive features. The commandment of love has an unconditional character which applies absolutely to all, in all circumstances, and in every kind of situation: "it is universal also though the worldwide breadth of the divine will, which wills nothing less than this : His Kingdom." 8 On the negative side, one can only declare something to be sin which violates the nature of God. Because it violates the nature of God it also violates the structural makeup of man and God’s design for him. Thus man cannot rightly speak of sin without the fact of God’s self-revelation. It is meaningless to speak of sin without reference to God’s commands.
Viewing sin as related to God and man as God’s creature, one might say that sin is wrong because it is essentially self deceptive and God desires nothing but the truth for man. In many cases sin--in its initial stages--has the halo of innocence. In others, a particular deed can be isolated from its effects and gives the impression of harmlessness. Second, and related to the deceptive aspect, is the fact that sin is self destroying. The commands of God are related to life and sin violates what makes for life. Perhaps one other comment concerning the evil of sin is that man in sin becomes self-centered. When man shuts God out of his life and becomes a god unto himself, he cuts himself off from the best that life has. Self-centeredness cuts off fellowship with God, with man, and the world at large.
TheNature of Sin
Christian faith has always looked to at least two types of materials in the Bible concerning the nature of sin. It has analyzed the story of Adam in the book of Genesis, and it has made a synthesis of the statements on sin with regard to man in general. We shall attempt to deal with the nature of sin along these lines.
Sin had to begin somewhere: The biblical record undoubtedly is to be understood from the standpoint of Adam’s sin as the first. We have already discussed in chapter 9 the authenticity of the account. We also discussed in that chapter the matter of Adam’s descendants and the problem of guilt associated with it. The reader is urged to review the material there. The beginning of sin vitally affects the question of the nature of sin. The nature of Adam’s sin centers in the words of unbelief or disobedience due to pride or egocentricity. One word does not adequately express all that was involved. It would perhaps be better expressed if one coined a hyphenated word such as "unbelieving-disobedience" or "disobeying-in-unbelief." The goodness of God was called into question in the Genesis story. The man Adam did not believe that God’s warnings were true, and this led him to disobey. Disobedience cannot be understood apart from unbelief. The story is sometimes recounted to picture man as standing with two choices, either to obey or disobey. The man Adam was never given such a middle position in choice. From the beginning, the commandment of obedience was placed upon him. Sin for him was going against the command of obedience. Unbelieving-disobedience was a fact of experience for him as well as for all mankind. The nature of "unbelieving-disobedience" is such that the self becomes the distorting factor of human life. To live in "believing-obedience" is to live under the dominion, the governorship of the Lord God. With unbelieving-disobedience, the self assumes the dominion and asserts its governorship and tyranny against the Lord God. Sin involves the swap of one rulership for another. However, in the case of man, it is not one tyranny for another, but the exchange of beneficent lordship for the anarchy of human freedom in which every person is a tyrant. The rule of the ego in a world of aspiring egos is the consequence of sin. Aulen states that "sin as unbelief and sin as egocentricity are one and the same thing seen from different points of view. Egocentricity is opposition to the divine will, and therefore ’unbelief.’ Whenever this power rules, the fellowship with God is destroyed."9 The nature of sin is such that in manifesting its egocentricity as unbelieving-disobedience it corrupts all that it touches. How could it be otherwise? This is one of the emphases of the doctrine of original sin. Can this not be seen in the original account. The children of Adam and Eve are corrupted by their parents. Cain expresses the same unbelieving-disobedience as Adam and Eve. We are not advocating a mere example theory of the transmission of sin, but one can see the reason for this theory to rise. Even if one granted that children were born innocent, the egocentric nature of the parents would soon corrupt them. There is a solidarity of the race in sin that almost defies explanation. The sin of Adam was not an insignificant act. Sin is not simply an isolated thing that has no connection with the present or the past, nor is without implication for the personality of man. The nature of unbelieving-disobedience is such that once a transgression is committed one can never return to the state of "un-sin" or innocence. Sin can be forgiven, but it has its devastating consequences. Sin has a cumulative effect. As sins pile up, it becomes easier for sin to assert itself. Sin can be compared to corrosion on a battery cable. The more corrosion, the weaker the battery power. The more sin corrupts the human personality, the less power to overcome it. The relationship of unbelieving disobedience to sensuality can be seen as the manifestation of the egocentric nature of man. The pleasure of the moment is not weighed against the future time in which indulgent egocentricity destroys itself and comes to judgment before God. Sin is not to be defined merely in terms of the sensual nature of man. Sensuality is only a manifestation of unbelieving-disobedience. Sensuality is "the result of egocentricity, a ’seeking one’s own.’" 10 Moreover, sin cannot be blithely defined as a form of intellectual heresy. It is true that there is a correlation between what one thinks and what one does, but sin is not simply the failure to believe this or that doctrine. There is no virtue in trying to believe as little as possible; on the other hand, the sin of man first relates to his lack of trust and commitment. The first sin of the race is important for the explanation of the fact of sin as well as understanding the history of mankind. It is, however, not the most significant fact in light of the subsequent story of man. What is more consequential is the other side of the story of man’s personal sin.
Sin is personal:_ We do not mean by this heading that Adam’s sin was not a personal act, but that our own sins relate to our responsibility and not to Adam. We cannot write off our sins by blaming others, as Reuben attempted to do with his evil involvement in getting rid of his brother Joseph (Gen 42:21-22).
Sin involves the whole person. Sin is not imposed on man, nor is it accidental or committed without man’s wilful involvement. Sin corrupts the entire man. Man’s perspective on ultimate things is warped. He stands helpless in a world that is his making. He is not at home in this world and his sin has alienated him from God’s world. He is like a man swimming upstream against violent currents. This is one of the implications of the term "total depravity." It does not mean that man is as mean as he could be, nor does it mean that one must overlook certain "noble"deeds of heroism It does mean that sinful man cannot swim against the stream and remedy his sinful condition by his own moral strength.11 Total Depravity means that man cannot gain an entrance to God on his own power and skill.
Sin is not separate acts which have no relationship to one another. Sometimes writers make the distinction between the terms "sin" and "sins." The word "sins" refers to the many separate acts or deeds that are the result of sin. The basis for this distinction comes from Rom 6:1-23, in which Paul speaks of sin as a tyranny or dominion over man. This governorship of sin rules man until he is delivered from it by his "death in Christ," and sin thereby has no more rule over a "dead" person. In the same chapter, one is commanded to fight against sins. Such a distinction is quite necessary in seeing the relationship between individual acts and the reason we do them. Man has submitted himself to the slavery of sin and is its bondsman. He does its bidding in terms of his egocentricity, and it is not until he is delivered from the rulership of sin that he is on the way to the recovery of his whole self. It is the heart that must be changed, as Jesus said, for here in the enslaved kingdom of the heart is where sin comes from: unbelieving-disobedience manifests itself in desires contrary to the good of the person’s structural design.
Personal sin implies responsibility. Luther posed the two alternatives : "Either man is responsible for nothing, or else he is responsible for his life as a whole." 12 Man is responsible for getting himself enslaved to sin and is responsible for his own delivery through commitment to Christ, who is the Deliverer. "Man is what he does. And he does what he is."13 Man reels from one sin to another and he does it consciously: hence responsibly. The New Testament Catalog of Sins
Any attempt to categorize the numerous listings of specific sins would be artificial and forced. Sometimes distinctions are made between sins against God and sins against the neighbor. "There is no sin against the neighbor which is not sin against God. The sin against the neighbor becomes sin just because it is sin against God."14 In dealing with the subject of sins, the New Testament is quite prolific in its lists of sins. The sins are somewhat specific but do deal in general principles. It is not presumed that an entire cataloging of sins is found in the New Testament. There is value in looking at the list, however.15
Abusiveness, adultery, anger (two words), arrogance, a base mind, being bereft of truth, bitterness, boastfulness, carousing, clamor, conceit (or conceitedness), covetousness, a craving for controversy, cowardliness, debauchery, deceit, depravity of mind, disobedience, including disobedience to parents, disorder, dissension (two words), doglike behavior, drunkenness (two words), enmity, envy, error, evil, evil eye (jealousy? or bearing a grudge?), evil thoughts, extortion, faithlessness, (two words), falsehood, false witness, fierceness, filthiness, foolishness or folly (three words), fornication (also rendered immorality in RSV), foul talk, gossip, greed (also rendered covetousness), mutual hatred, being hated by men, hating God, hating good, haughtiness, heartlessness, homosexuality (two words; and also sodomy, as below), idolatry (two words), immorality, improper conduct, inhumanity, implacableness, impurity, ingratitude, injustice, insolence, invention of evil, lying, malice, malignity, man-slaying murder, murder of father or mother, party spirit, passion (three words), evil desire, slavery to passion and pleasures, perjury, love of pleasure, pollution, pride, profaneness, profligacy, wild profligacy (another word), quarrelsomeness, recklessness, reveling, reviling, robbery, ruthlessness, selfishness, silly talk, sin, slander (three words), sodomy, sorcery, strife (also rendered quarrelsomeness), base suspicion, theft, treachery, ungodliness, unholiness, unrighteousness, wickedness (also rendered evil or injustice), worship of demons, wrangling, wrath-a total of 115 terms, not counting duplications.16 The variety in the above list, as well as its rather full coverage of sins, is significant of the ethical life of the Christian.
There are some observations that should be drawn at this time. First, the listing deals with individual sins. One will look in vain for a community or national ethic in the New Testament. There is nothing said in this list about the sin of war, for instance. Other national sins are not condemned. Certainly one can extend from the personal to the greater sin of the nation, but it must be remembered that the passages deal with individuals primarily. When one is tempted to extend the list to apply to national policy, it may be questioned on the grounds that the ethics of religion may be imposed on those who do not share the Christian faith. Christian ethics presupposes a spiritual background, that is, the experience of conversion, and without this as a prerequisite, it would be unfair to suggest that other people abide by its moral code. Second, there is no distinction between the various categories of sins. The list includes all types: physical, mental, and spiritual. The condemnation placed on physical or sensual sins by our present "religious" culture is out of all proportion to the other sins. It is ironic that we often condemn sins of the body that "burn out" due to the aging of the body, but do not condemn as severely the sins of the mind or spirit that intensify with advancing years. For instance, there is greater possibility in a grouchy person’s becoming more grouchy. The cynic becomes more cynical. The man who is set against God becomes convinced more firmly in his opposition. All of this is not to overlook the possibility of repentance and the renewing of personality but to emphasize that the many distinctions between sins are artificial and wrong.
TheUnpardonable Sin The New Testament has a few references to a particular sin that is removed from the usual category of sins. It has commonly been called the "unpardonable sin" or "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." There is no general agreement concerning the nature of the unpardonable sin. One might approach the matter as Halford E. Luccock does. He proposes, in due reverence, a list of sayings that he would call, "Things I Wish Jesus Had Never Said." One he lists is Mat 12:22-37. He concedes a sentiment for the idea that the words in the passage were uttered in great indignation and that perhaps at some other time Jesus would not have uttered them.17 Such a comment with regard to ordinary men would be quite true; but, molded by purpose and knowledge of doing the Father’s will, it seems difficult to write off such a reaction on the part of Jesus. For whether or not there is uttered here a statement out of anger, there is a basic truth--which Luccock also admits--which remains : Sin can become so deeply rooted within the personality that no change is ever desired. To this we will return.
Various attempts have been made to explain the nature of the unpardonable sin. They are not always mutually exclusive. First, it is sometimes defined as opposition to conversion. Often the passage from Gen 6:3 is quoted to show that there is a time in which God will stop dealing with the human heart. But the words, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever," refer only to the 120 years that Noah had to build the ark. After the 120 years, the flood would come. The passage has nothing to do with the unpardonable sin. So opposition to conversion is not the unpardonable sin. Many people have opposed conversion for long years and later became Christians. This viewpoint can become true at death. If one opposes conversion until he dies he is involved in unpardoned sin, but there was always a possibility that he could have been converted anywhere along the way.18 Second, the unpardonable is sometimes defined as the hardening of the heart and mind to the truth of the gospel. This has only a shade of difference in meaning from the above. The turning of the heart from truth to falsehood paves the way for more serious acts of rebellion. Aulen states, "When Christian faith speaks of a state of ’hardness of heart,’ it understands thereby a definite rejection of the divine and gracious will characterized by the suspension of the consciousness of guilt."19 Thus, one cannot continue to be stubborn in resistance to the gospel of Christ without its taking its toll in one’s life. However, we do not feel that this is the unpardonable sin. Third, the real truth of Mat 12:22-37 and Mark 3:19-30 is that the unpardonable sin is a very definite thing. Jesus spoke concerning this after the Pharisees attributed to an evil source that which was clearly the work of the Holy Spirit. They attributed his exorcism of demons to the power of Satan. A good deed does not come forth from a foul creature. Only by the Spirit’s power does it come about (John 3:19-21). "The unforgivable sin is the utter rebellion against God that denies him as the doer of his own acts."20 To boil it down in three words, it is "calling good evil." Why is it unforgivable? The basic reason is psychological, not theological. "It was evidence of a moral obtuseness and perverseness so deep-rooted that there was no hope of its ever being changed. Calling good evil ranges all the way from ascribing good actions to evil motives, to the supreme example cited in the ... words of Milton’s Satan, "Evil, be thou my good."21 Sin can become so enslaving in its more sophisticated forms, in sensuality, pleasure, prestige, ambition, power, and popularity, that the person does not want to turn from it. A complete reversal of values takes place. Evil becomes the good. Good becomes the undesirable. However all along there is nothing from God’s standpoint that would prohibit forgiveness. The problem lies with the freedom of personality to remain enslaved in its reversal of values. There are two other features that must be discussed in connection with the unpardonable sin. First, is it possible that believing people can commit this act? The general answer is no, because conscience and concern are still alert in them. Indeed one might well ask the question whether it is possible for anyone to commit this particular sin. One could question it on the basis of the details of the chapter. We do not have the presence of Jesus with us in body today, and we do not have his acts of healing. However, we can come to a complete reversal of values by attributing good things to evil sources. I simply raise the question without answering it. The other feature is the distinction between sins against the Spirit and the sin against the Spirit. All that we ever do in sin is against the Spirit. We are admonished not to grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30). But there is only one act which can be called the unpardonable sin. The Unpardoned Sins The unpardoned sins are those that are unconfessed when one dies. What is the implication for the man who lives a reasonably good Christian life but may be guilty of some sins which he has never confessed or turned from? There are essentially two views to this matter within Christianity. First, the Roman Catholic position is to say that mortal sins, even in a good Roman Catholic Christian would be condemning and the man would, by his sinful act, bring the judgment of hell upon himself. If there were merely venial sins in his life, these would be taken care of in the state of purgatory. Unpardoned sins must be dealt with one way or the other. The second answer comes from the Reformation viewpoint and is more closely anchored in the New Testament. The idea of justification or righteousness from God (Rom 1:16-18; Rom 3:24-26) means that a man is accepted by his faith in Christ. It does not imply that he is perfected once and for all in this life. The Christian life has its ups and downs. The man is still redeemed even when guilty of occasional acts of sin. However, his occasional transgressions do violence to his fellowship-relationship to God, but not to his redemption-relationship. It is impossible to be confessed up with regard to sins at all times. If one were going to try it, it might be possible to remember one’s overt acts of sin, but what about the commanded actions of the New Testament the so-called sins of omission? The sins of omission are also as damning as the sins of commission. If one is going to grade sins, as the Roman Catholic theologians do, one is always going to stand in jeopardy of casting himself into hell. On the other hand, the grace of God is his gracious receiving of trusting men and women in spite of their shortcomings. We are not trying to minimize sin at this point; on the other hand, it is so serious that we must affirm that God saves us in spite of ourselves, or we would not be saved at all. If we must remain perfect, then where is the need of grace? There is another aspect to unpardoned sins. One can continue to live apart from God and the gospel of his Son. One comes to death and terminates life without committing his life to Jesus Christ. One dies unpardoned. This is to be distinguished from the unpardonable sin. The unpardoned sins become now unpardonable.
Distinction of Sins
Within the diversity of Christian faith there are different viewpoints concerning the types of sins. On the one extreme is the Roman Catholic view which regards sin within two categories. First, there are mortal sins. A mortal sin is "an act so grievously subversive of the moral order as to destroy the friendship existing between the soul and God, and to frustrate the end of the moral law, which is the due subordination of all created good to God, the infinite and sovereign good." 22 "The loss of grace being the immediate effect of moral sin necessarily involves eternal separation from God, should the sinner die unrepentant."23 It should be kept in mind that the Roman Catholic idea of grace is akin to a spiritual substance imparted to the soul like food is taken into the body by mouth. When mortal sin is committed, the food supply (grace) to the soul is cut off. Without the food supply the soul will perish. To regain the supply, the soul must repent and be absolved by receiving the sacrament of the Church which turns on the flow of grace again. (We do not want to be crude in this illustration, but it is necessary to distinguish paramount difference in the concepts of grace. It must be noted that in Protestantism in general, grace is not conceived as a substance, but as the benevolent attitude of God. This distinction has tremendous importance for the different views of sin and grace.) Examples of mortal sin are "to injure either oneself or one’s neighbor so that normal human duties become impossible to perform (i.e. suicide; total neglect of one’s own spiritual welfare; theft or murder)."24 To the age-old question that concerns many people, can a person be saved and lost? the Catholic answer is an emphatic yes! Second; there are venial sins which "do not involve the loss of grace, and whose effects can be repaired by the supernatural principle of grace and charity which, still remain in the soul."25 The analogy of the word "stain" on the soul possibly suggests what is meant by this type of sin. Venial sins are not condemning sins. Of course, one will have to suffer for them. But even if purgatory be the goal of most Roman Catholics, they can be assured, regardless of how long they remain in a state of purifying suffering, that they will eventually reach the goal of heaven. Venial sins are committed by everyone and "not even the holiest person can avoid them altogether." 26 One cannot stack up venial sins to equal a mortal sin. It is also true that under given circumstances, the act committed might be either venial or mortal. If man commits an act which is really mortal but he thinks that it is venial, then it is venial. The same holds true for the person who believes that the sin he is committing is mortal even though it may be only venial in nature. This briefly is the Roman Catholic view regarding the differences in sins. On the other side is the Protestant view which makes no distinction between the various sins. This view begins with the proposition of James: "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it." (2:10). In addition, the various New Testament listings of sins mingle them together. Jesus spoke in the same breath of evil thought and murder, of adultery and slander, of fornication and theft. Paul’s listings in Romans commingle gossipers with murders and disobedience to parents in the same sentence with "haters of God." In Rom 13:13, he speaks of drunkenness in the context of jealousy and quarreling. In most of the other passages in the New Testament the same pattern holds true.
One of the reasons for the tendency to distinguish between sins, as the Roman Catholics do and others also, is because sins are different. However, the real important difference is in the consequences rather than in the matter of guilt. Adultery, for instance, has great consequence for it involves not just one person but a whole network of personality involvements. The presence of children involves a serious consequence as well as the possible breakup of two homes. However, Jesus spoke of the seriousness of lustful thinking in contrast to adultery. "Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mat 5:28). Certainly lustful thinking does not have the involvements of the multi-personality which the actual act has, but it is still termed adultery by Jesus and is as serious as the committed act. There is also a difference between murder and the thought of murder, but each is liable to judgment. Thus there are greater consequences in the committed act as opposed to the contemplated thought. But each is equally the same serious sin against God. Each is equally condemning. The same holds true for the fact of falsehood, cheating, jealousy, gossip, and the many other sins listed in the New Testament. Yahweh is the God of truth with regard to witness, slander, or injustice. He has laid down certain claims with regard to himself and the rights of others. The Ten Commandments set forth his right of priority of all things, the reverence due his name, his day on earth, and his rule over man. Man also has certain rights: life-commit no murder; family-commit no adultery; property-commit no theft; reputation-commit no slander; and security-do not envy. When distinctions are drawn between sins (and not the consequences) there is at work a theology which will eventually make many sins into virtuous acts. Such a tendency in theology will water down the concept of the holiness of God and end with the ability of man to atone for many of his petty sins. Such a distinction brings on the demise of grace and the exaltation of man’s goodness. All of which is contrary to the New Testament. The Consequences of Sin The New Testament very easily sums up the consequences of sin: "The wages of sin is death" ( Rom 6:23 ) . Many reasons have been marshalled to explain why sin has to be punished. Some have suggested that punishment vindicates divine righteousness; others have maintained that punishment brings reform to sinners; still others speak of punishment as a deterrent from further sinning. Great objections can be raised against all of these. The real answer to the punishment of sin comes in relation to the creative design of man and the holiness of God. With regard to the creative design of man. God has made man in such a way that the laws of nature and the laws concerning good and evil are for his own good. As long as man obeys the structure of order he can find happiness. In this sense, one can look at the law prohibiting adultery. The design of the Creator was for a man and woman to live together faithfully in love to one another. Where adultery enters, the picture of whole family structure is at stake. There is a breakup of loyalty. One cannot love two in marriage because two loyalties are contrary to the structure of monogamy. As man violates his vows of loyalty and trust he has violated the design of the Creator and thus alienates himself from him. Where the marriage vow is violated there are certain psychological results that automatically enter. One’s mental life becomes subject to distressing disturbances which "rob him of joy, disqualify him for his daily task, and sometimes entirely destroys his mental equilibrium. His very soul becomes a battlefield of conflicting thoughts, passions, and desires. The will refuses to follow the judgment of the intellect, and the passions run riot without the control of an intelligent will. The true harmony of life is destroyed, and makes way for the curse of the divine life. Man is in a state of dissolution, which often carries with it the most poignant sufferings."27 This has a very real connection with the other factor: God’s holiness. Not only does man violate the structural makeup of his nature, but he also violates the nature of the Designer. God is holy. The nature of God is such that the evil, unholy, wicked nature of man cannot enter unprotected into his presence without annihilation. Without the continuing power and presence of God in his life, man the finite creature, has no other alternative than to die in violating the design of his existence. One must bear in mind that salvation is simply the deliverance from the ultimate consequence of all of this. Physical death is not terminated, but pardon is granted to man and entry is made possible into the presence of God by his protection: the death of Christ in covenant. The consequences of sin are fourfold:
Present miseries---Some sins bear with them the seeds of consequences bringing misery, suffering, and sorrow to man. Certain sins bring harm to the body when sin is committed. The breakdown of physical life is only part of the misery. Unconfessed sin may haunt one’ s mental and spiritual well-being for years. Some sins may have no direct connection with the body but may eventually affect it when worry, guilt, and self indictment disturb the soul of man. But it must be acknowledged that in some cases it appears that men prosper while sinning and the "righteous" seem to have only sorrow. Psa 73:1-28( Psa 73:1-18) speaks of this experience. Although sin has possibilities for present life, judgment on sin is not completed until God’s final judgment.
Spiritual death---"Sin separates man from God, and that means death, for it is only in communion with the living God that man can truly live."28 Alienation from God becomes final and eternal if conversion does not take place before death. One can speak of this as eternal death.
Physical death---This is to be defined as the cessation of life as we know it in the physical realm. The body functions cease and the spiritual faculties of man no longer possess a channel of expression. There is a breakdown of all the component parts of human life. The body decays and the spirit is deprived of its earthly abode. That which made up the body again becomes earth and the form of man is lost until the resurrection brings the form into new being. The spirit departs the body to abide in its destined place. The spirits of the redeemed enjoy the presence of the Lord, while the spirits of the unredeemed begin to experience partial judgment which will not be complete until God’s judgment takes place after the resurrection of all men. Then the spirits of the dead will be reunited with their raised and changed bodies to enter the future existence as a complete person. This fact is somewhat borne out by man’s physical life. The new-born baby is a dying creature. The body is continually replacing itself with new cells while the elimination of dead cells continues throughout life. Physical death becomes a reality when the body can no longer keep ahead of the need for repair and re-creation.
Death everlasting--- At this point death does not mean a termination of being and existence. Death everlasting means that the individual has decreed for his own existence an existence apart from the presence of God. This takes place forever. Just as in mortal life the rebelling person was sustained in his rebellion by God’s power, so now in death everlasting his state of existence is sustained by God’s power. Luther’s comment that hell is God’s hell remains true. The Bible says nothing of a termination point, presumably because the tendency of sin is to further the separation from God. The self-centered world of the sinful becomes all the more self-centered, and the shriveling up of the person keeps pace with the direction of sin. The horror of hell is not what God will do to me, but what I have done to myself. A fuller treatment of this matter will be reserved for the doctrine concerning last things.
Controversies about sins
Humans are inclined to rationalize or justify their own sins. This can be seen in the previous centuries in which slavery was defended by people with Christian backgrounds. But it was also the Christian community that started the movement to abolish slavery. It may be that each generation has its own particular sin to defend. In the later part of the 20th century into the 21st there has been growing controversy over homosexuality. The issue has focused on the ordination of homosexual pastors to a practicing homosexual bishop. Related to this is the question of whether two homosexuals can marry. Regardless of what the law of the land dictates, the question must be raised for the Christian from the standpoint of Scripture. If we are to ignore the Scripture then our basic Christian faith has eroded to relativism. In relativism there is no sin and anyone can do anything without regard to its rightness or wrongness.
There are two sources that must be considered about homosexuality. The Old Testament must be considered first and by itself since one might say that we are not under the Law but under grace. The Old Testament does condemn homosexuality as an abomination.
We can begin with the story of creation with Gen 1:27-28; Gen 2:18; Gen 2:23-24
" So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ’woman,’ for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. "
Before commenting on the story of creation, one must realize that the view of God in the Old Testament begins with God who is non-sexual in contrast to the gods of many cultures. Almost all gods in the ancient world and many in the modern world have consorts. The division between homosexuality and heterosexuality begins with the Bible Non-marital sex is forbidden in the Bible. Other ancient cultures had no such rules. The model of creation is a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve as the cliché goes. At this point there were no possibilities of homosexual relations, and the man-woman relation is a relation of God’s design. Man’s incompleteness was not that he needed another man, or animals, nor many women. The woman was the complement of man, nothing else. The physical anatomy (the plumbing, as it were) is designed to fulfill the command of God to fill the earth with progeny. Homosexual advocates raise the question if people are barren or unable to have sexual relations, then they are guilty of not fulfilling this command. In a number of examples in the OT women were barren and there is no indication that it was a good thing to turn to a lesbian relationship, nor was it considered sinful if they did not have children. It was a disappointment but not a sin. A second scripture that the homosexual theologians seem to pervert is the story of Lot in Sodom. Gen 19:4-9 " Before they [the angels visiting Lot to judge the wickedness of Sodom and determine whether or not to spare it] had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them [lit., ’so we may know them’]." Lot went outside to meet them... and said, "No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men... ." ...And they said, "We’ll treat you worse than them."
Homosexual activists argue that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. But Lot’s response was "Don’t do this wicked thing" Hospitality would not have been wicked, but the intention of rape was wicked and that seems to be Lot’s understanding. The fact that he suggested giving them his two virgin daughters was sexual in nature. The men of the town were bent on homosexual rape of the visitors and would have raped the two girls had not the angels intervened.. The literature of the later centuries affirms that Sodom was a sexually promiscuous town. This is affirmed in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs and the book of Jubilees. Moreover Josephus and Philo, two prominent Jewish writers, affirm the homosexual nature of the citizens of Sodom.
Eze 16:49-50 is used by homosexual activists as proof that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality but they were "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." This does not have anything to do with homosexuality, but the next verse is overlooked."They were haughty and did detestable things before me" (16:50). What are these detestable things? The book of Jude gives an answer Jude 1:7 : " In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." This is not a modern interpretation of the sin of Sodom, it is reflected in the documents of the first century as well as some before it, such as 3 Maccabees, and Jubilees. The Levitical law gives us another passage of the OT condemning homosexuality. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable [or, ’an abomination’].(Lev 18:22) " If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable [or, ’an abomination’]. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."(Lev 20:13)
These passages have been rejected by homosexual writers claiming they have nothing to do with sexuality but with idolatry. Idolatry was the abomination and so the passages do not refer to homosexuality. It is strange that people who want to justify their actions need to twist the scripture to do it. These passages are in an extensive context that deals with sexual relations, not idolatry. The logic of the homosexual movement is that if actions are not related to idolatry then any sexual act would be acceptable. This would include incest, adultery, and bestiality. The word abomination is used in other contexts than merely idolatry. Pro 6:16-19 describes 7 things that are an abomination to the Lord and none of them have to do with idolatry.
Any interpretation of the Old Testament that is not twisted and self-serving to rationalize one’s action would lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong, a sin that God has condemned. In turning to the New Testament we have the same story. Homosexuality is sin in the eyes of God and there are strong statements against it. We turn first to the book of Romans, chapter 1. Rom 1:26-27 :
" Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. " The claim of some homosexuals that Paul is referring to heterosexuals who experiment with homosexuality as it is unnatural for them to do this is wrong. The idea of burning with lust for one another does not describe a little experimentation. Burning in lust expresses a way of life, and that is the condemnation. The sociological studies of the homosexual lifestyle indicates that the typical male may have up to 500 partners. The homosexual lifestyle is condemned as unnatural, contrary to God’s creation, and is contrary to the Gospel message. The next passage in the New Testament is 1Co 6:9-10 :
" Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [’abusers of themselves with mankind’]... will inherit the kingdom of God." " We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels... for adulterers and perverts [’them that defile themselves with mankind’].".. 1Ti 1:9-10 The Greek word αρσενοκοιτη, (arsenokoite) is a word Paul drew from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) and comes from the very passages in Leviticus that condemned homosexuality. It has been argued that the word does not refer to homosexuality since it is a word new to the NT, and there were other words used in that time for homosexuality.. Surely, they argue, if Paul had meant to condemn homosexuality he would have used other words. As it turns out the word comes from the Septuagint in the very passages that do condemn the homosexual lifestyle. Also, why insist on limiting Paul’s vocabulary? The richness of writing is the use of many different words. The sadness of the homosexual movement is that acceptance of their lifestyle is a goal in society. They argue by twisting the scripture, they argue that their behavior is normal, or they were born that way, or that they cannot change. There are lots of things people seek to justify in their lives. Adultery may be justified by a person because they are not satisfied with their spouse. Child abuse may be justified under the guise of strong discipline. Robbery may be rationalized that society has kept one poor. Alcoholics may reason that they are addicted and nothing can be done. The good news of these verses relates to Paul’s declaration concerning the Corinthians, that such were some of you, and the Message Bible says "A number of you know from experience what I’m talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you’ve been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit" (1Co 6:10)
There is good news for help from God. I have the unfortunate experience of knowing a mother who would not give her son information about the possibility of a new life in Christ escaping the homosexual lifestyle, because she could accept his homosexuality over his becoming a Christian.
Sex outside of marriage. In a similar vein there is a group of professed Christians who argue, like the homosexual movement, that somehow we have been taught the wrong thing by monks and others who think sexuality is bad. Reference is often made to Augustine who was influenced by Greek philosophy that the body is evil, therefore sex is evil, and it would be better if one could have children without passion. This type of influence is then traced through the church in the middle ages as a way of controlling people.
It must be said correctly that sexuality is a gift of God that is associated with pleasure.
God invented it and it has pleasure for the purpose of bonding two people together as well as procreation. Loving sexual relations between husband and wife can be a spiritual experience in which one rejoices in God who has given this wonderful experience to us.
What can be said about the passages of Scripture on sexuality in the Bible. The first passage is Gen 2:18-25 in which God created man and woman for one another. The woman was a companion to the man If man was so incomplete as to require other women in his life for sexual purpose, may we not conclude that God goofed? The fact that man wants other women is a result of our rebellion from the original state of God’s creation. There is no doubt that men are attracted to other women, but this is something that must be controlled as well as anger, greed, and any other sin we could put here. Faithfulness in marriage is a basis for sexual fulfillment in marriage. Gen 2:1-25 is an example of God’s intention. That model has not changed either though it has been rejected in many cultures, even in the history of Israel of the OT.
Argument is often made that God did not correct or judge people like David or Solomon, and many others that could be named. There are lots of things in the OT that God did not correct or judge. The way David treated captives is worthy of condemnation by our standards, but God did not intervene and judge him for that. There are no references to the sins of other peoples of the earth. Paul makes some references to this concerning the Athenians when he said, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men every where to repent.” Certainly there are cultures that have continued this deviation from the model of Genesis, but they have also paid a price in human freedom. We can think about this again.
The second passage of Scripture is Exo 22:16-17, “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.” On this passage it is argued that pre-marital sex is not prohibited in the Bible. The claim concerns the money, not the sex. On the contrary, it must be said that the fact the dowry price had to be paid suggests that something was wrong. Neither the man or woman had the right to engage in sex. Second, the example of Diana being raped and revenge taken on her by her brothers means that sex was not as easy going as some want to make it. Tamar and Ammon are two people who reflect sexual relations outside of marriage that ended in tragedy for both of them.
It is argued that two people who love one another can have a relationship of sex if there is consent on the part of both. If two couples care about one another and agree to swap wives for the pleasure of the evening, it is argued as being a loving experience. Given this frame of reasoning anything should be ok as long as it is done in love. There are modern examples of people killing others because they “loved” them so much. The word love is often disguised lust in sexuality. A man will tell a woman he loves her to seduce her. Afterwards, he drops her and no longer “loves” her.
There are serious problems in sexuality. Leviticus gives a number of prohibitions and many of them involve family relations, but one speaks of the neighbor. “Never have sexual intercourse with your neighbor’s wife and become unclean with her.” (Lev 18:20) The passage begins with the admonition not to live as the heathen do. “You used to live in Egypt. Don’t live the way the Egyptians do. I am bringing you to Canaan. Don’t live the way the Canaanites do. Never live by their standards.” (Lev 18:3) If the Israelites are to be different than the sexually promiscuous people around, this cannot mean a return to free love. Any attempt to use the terms Christian “swinging” (wife-swapping) together is an oxymoron.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. (Gen 2:23-24). The union of “ a man” and “his wife” (not another’s wife) gives us a charter for monogamy. They shall be one flesh until death shall part them. Only monogamy will fill the details of this language. It has been argued by those in favor of Christian liberation (from repressive sexual standards ) that there is nothing in the Bible outlawing premarital sex. The claim is made that the Greek word πορνεια (porneia) translated as “ fornication” is a mistranslation. They claim that sexual immorality would be more correct in translating porneia. The intention is to claim that unmarried sex is acceptable. However, the Good News Bible translates it as immorality in 1Co 6:18, “Avoid immorality (porneia), Any other sin a man commits does not affect his body; but the man who is guilty of sexual immorality sins against his own body. The Contemporary English version translates it, “Don’t be immoral in matters of sex. That is a sin against your own body in a way that no other sin is.” The word immoral is the Greek word porneia. In this passage in I Cor. there is a contrast between being immoral and being adulterous. Different Greek words are used. Immorality, or fornication, whichever one prefers, is contrasted to adultery which relates to marriage. So apparently the general term applied to people not married, and adultery applied to married people. Consequently, it seems reasonable to suppose that the NT does condemn sex for anyone who is single and not married.
This is evident from two passages in Paul’s letters. 1Co 7:2 says “ Nevertheless,
“....God wants you to live a pure life. Keep yourselves from sexual promiscuity. Learn to appreciate and give dignity to your body, not abusing it, as is so common among those who know nothing of God.”
There are some practical considerations in trying to project libertarian views on the Bible. People were married at an early age, 12-14 depending on the gender, and this is the fertile period of life. It is difficult to think of wife swapping for the Jewish culture in which it was important to know who your son and heir was. The genealogies of the OT are not without significance. The modern attitude toward liberal sex views in a religious context were only possible after birth control was more efficient. This is not to say immorality did not exist because of a lack of birth control, but it involved shame in its consequences. In the modern situation there is no shame, only rationalization. The sexual freedom that has come about in the last 50 years has brought with it a lot of unexpected consequences. Sexually transmitted diseases have mushroomed in the intervening years. Before the sexual revolution gonorrhea and syphilis were the two basic sexual disease that were in western society. Now physicians speak of at least 32 different sexually transmitted diseases with AIDs being the most deadly. Gonorrhea and syphilis were controlled by penicillin, but there is no drug yet that can cure AIDS. The widespread epidemic of AIDS has brought devastation to millions of people worldwide. Promiscuity in sexuality is responsible for the death of fathers and mothers with children being left as orphans in many countries. In some cultures it is believed wrongly that sex with a virgin is a cure for AIDSs, but in reality is a potential killer of the young girl.
Women have so much more at stake in the libertarian sexual revolution. Birth control is not 100 per cent effective and some find themselves pregnant with a child they are not ready for. This often leads to abortion, the killing of the unborn, and this is often followed by post-abortion syndrome, something that few women want to talk about.
The women may also be subject to physical problems with many sexual partners. Not only are there sexual transmitted diseases, but she may be more prone to have cancer of the cervix because of the multiple partners. “Several famous precepts of medicine were stated by a famous German physician and have been preserved as ’Kochs Postulates’. One of the postulates is that the more rapidly a pathogen is spread in a population, the more virulent it becomes. Never has that been more apparently true than with the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). HPV is the cause of a sexually transmitted or venereal disease most commonly expressed as papillomas or ’warts’ on the glans or shaft of the penis and on the vulva and/or the vagina and/or the cervix. The papillommas grossly resemble cauliflower, and in some cases the entire vulva may be replaced by the large cauliflower-like lesions. These are extremely disgusting in appearance! More severe strains of HPV cause 99%+ of the cases of carcinoma of the cervix, a leading cancer in women. HPV may also be responsible for cancer of the vulva, cancer of the vagina and cancer of the glans of the penis. This virus-HPV-has been a human pathogen for at least hundreds of years but only in the past three decades has it become this virulent...presumably from its rapid passage. Even human physiology cries out against promiscuity!!! 29 Not only are these problem huge, but the woman may be regarded merely as a "thing" to be exploited, used, abuse, and deserted, particularly if she becomes pregnant. Women discover too late that when a man says "I love you" he means he wants sex, and when she says, "I love you," she thinks in terms of commitment. It is true that in this era mutual exploitation can take place, but the woman is often the biggest loser. The Christian view of sexuality is that God created man and woman for each other. This relationship requires commitment, a covenant between the two people, that they will be faithful to one another, rejoice in one another, affirm one another, and love one another. Growing old together in love is what makes marriage a little bit of heaven on earth.
Corporate sins The sins of the corporate world are many. It would be impossible to catalog them for they vary from company to company. In this century we have seen the Enron scandal in which the retirement funds of employees dissipated due to the mismanagement of several key people. There are many stories of CEOs using the corporation for their own personal pleasures without regard for the stockholders.
Some corporations doing government contracts pay their employees less than a living wage while upper management draws large salaries. It is not uncommon in the last half of the century for corporations to increase their outsourcing solely for the purpose of increasing their bottom line profits. Jobs are cut and people are thrown out of work because of corporate profits. Outsourcing is becoming a major economic sin of corporate America. It is not because trained people cannot be found, rather the issue is greed. If people cannot find jobs here, how will they be able to buy the company product? In another vein, corporations have little regard for the environment both in terms of using it without regard for replacement and spoiling it with waste products. Companies pollute the water, air, and the environment without regard for the well-being of those around them. Only when the government steps in are controls put into effect. Little is being done to preserve the rain forests. The rain forests are disappearing due to company greed and without regard for the future of the rain forests. There will be no new rainforests once they are destroyed. Loss of the rain forests will affect the weather, the productivity of the poor soil, and the loss of yet undiscovered species. The sins of government. Volumes are needed to deal with a topic as broad as this.
High on the list is suppression of the rights of people. Dictators have flourished throughout history and the view of might makes right has been around long before Plato described it.Suppression is expressed in control of the press in which people do not have freedom of speech. It is expressed in the suppression of religion in which people do not have the freedom to believe or not believe according to their own consciences. The lack of freedom in Muslim cultures, in Marxists cultures, is appalling. Dictators are threatened by free speech and freedom of religion. Cultures which do not allow freedom of speech and religion are cultures which would not do well in the open market of ideas. When people are forced to worship a god they do not accept, or are forced to submit, it is a sham. Forced worship is not worship at all. One needs to ask the question concerning the nature of the god who commands forced worship, whether this is of god or the devil.
X. The Christian View of Sin
1Aulen, op. cit., p. 259 2 Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1947), p. 37.3
3Ibid.. p. 38.
4 Ibid., p. 39
5 Ibid., p. 58
6 Ibid., p. 53
7Ibid., p. 55
8Ibid. p. 59 9Aulen, op.cit., pp.264-65
10Ibid., p. 265 11 Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology, p. 72.
12Aulen, op. cit, p. 283. (As Aulen phrased it.
13 Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV-1,492.] 14Aulen, op. cit, p. 261.
15For an alphabetical listing, see Frederick C. Grant, An Introduction to New Testament Thought (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950), pp. 176-77
16These are drawn from the following passages: Mark 7:21-22; 2Co 12:20; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 4:31; Eph 5:3-5; Col 3:5; Col 3:8; Mat 15:19; Luk 18:11 ;Rom 1:28-31; Rom 13:13; 1Co 5:9-11; 1Co 6:9-10; 1Ti 1:9-10; 1Ti 6:4-5; 2Ti 3:2-4; Tit 3:3; 1Pe 4:3; Rev 9:21; Rev 21:8; Rev 22:15.
17The Interpreters Bible (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1951 ), VII, 69-93.
18 Lange’s commentary speaks of the sin as follows: "It is open and full opposition to conversion, and hence to forgiveness."-Commentary on Matthew, p. 224.
19Aulen, op.cit. p. 286 20Oxford Annotated Bible, eds. Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 1186.
21Interpreter’s Bible, VII, 693.
22George D. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, p. 927.
23Ibid., p. 931 24A Handbook of the Catholic Faith, p.392 25 George D. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church, p. 947.
26Ibid., p. 949 27Berkhof, op.cit., p.259
28Berkhof, op. cit., p. 259. See Mat 8:22; Luk 15:32; John 5:24; John 8:51 Romans 8: 13.; 29 Ed. Ransdell, M.D. , F.A.C.O.G.