Thiessen: Doctrine Of Sin

 

PAGE 1

THE NATURE OF SIN

Some theologians understand sin as “lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, or state, “4 whereas others define it as “anything in the creature which does not express, or which is contrary to, the holy character of the Creator. “5 No doubt both of these are correct, for moral  law is a reflection of God’s character. That sin is transgression of law is clear in Scripture (Rom. 7:7-13; Gal. \ 3:10, 12; James 2:8-12; 1 John 3:4), and that it relates to God’s character is also evident. When Isaiah saw God in his holiness, he recognized his own sinfulness (Isa. 6:1-6; cf. Job 42:5f. ; Luke 5 : 8 ; Rev. 1: 17). God is holy and we are to conform to his holiness; anything short of this is sin (Lev. 19:2; 1 Pet. 1:15f.).

 

Sin is a violation of the law of God.

 

Sin is want of conformity to, or transgression of, the law of God. Since we are moral and rational creatures, we are of necessity subject to the law of right. The only question is, what that law may be. Hodge points out that it 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 expediency 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.6 The law of God is summarized in the words of Jesus, ” ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. And a second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:3740). Both the Old and New Testaments use various terms for sin and sinning. Some of these are: sin (Gen. 18:20; Rom. 3:23), disobedience (Rom. 5:19), iniquity (Lev. 26:40), lawlessness (Titus 2:14), transgression (Exod. 23:21; 1 Tim. 2:14), trespass (Eph. 2:1), ignorance (Heb. 9:7), godlessness (1 Pet. 4:18), wickedness (Prov. 11:31), unbelief (Rom. ll:20), unrighteousness (1 John 1:9), unjustness (Deut. 25:16), and unholiness (1 Tim. 1:9). Several specific clarifications concerning the relation between the law and sin must be noted. (1) Failure to do what the law enjoins is as much sin as doing what it forbids. There are sins of omission as well as of commission (James 4:17; cf. Rom. 14:23). (2) To fail in one point is to be guilty of the whole (Gal. 3: 10; James 2: 10). One needs to break but one of God’s commandments to be guilty in his sight. (3) Ignorance of a law does not excuse a man. “That slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of flogging, will receive but few. And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more” (Luke 12:47f.).

 

PAGE 2

Ignorance of the law lessens the penalty as to degree, but not as to duration. (4) Ability to keep the law is not essential to make the non-fulfillment sin. Man’s inability to fulfill the law is due to his own part in the sin of Adam, and is not an original condition. Since the law of God expresses the holiness of God as the only standard for the creature, ability to obey cannot be the measure of obligation or the test of sin. (5) The feeling of guilt is not necessary to the fact of sin. Man’s moral standard may be so low and his conscience may have been so often sinned against, that he has practically no sense of sin left. This, however, does not remove the fact of sin. 3. Sin is a principle or nature as well us an act. Want of conformity to the law of God embraces want in nature as well as in conduct. Acts of sin spring from a principle or nature that is sinful. A corrupt tree can only bring forth evil fruit (Matt. 7:17f.). “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders” (Matt. 15 : 19). Back of murder lies fierce hatred, back of adultery lies sinful lust (Matt. 5:21f., 27f. ; cf. James 1: 14f.). Scripture distinguishes between sin and sins, the one the nature, the other the expression of that nature. Sin is present in everyone as a nature before it expresses itself in deeds. Paul wrote, “Sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died” (Rom. 7:8f.). Paul also affirmed, “Sin. . . indwells me” (v. 17), and he represented sin as reigning in the unsaved (Rom. 6:12-14). John said, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1: 8). The Old Testament regulation concerning sins of ignorance, or omission, and concerning general sinfulness indicates that sin is not limited to acts, but includes also the conditions from which the acts arise / Lev. 5:2-6). The opinion of mankind in general concurs with this view. Men universally attribute both vice and virtue to dispositions and states, as well as to conscious and deliberate acts. Thus they speak of a “bad temper,” and an “evil disposition. ” Indeed, outward acts are condemned only when they are regarded as originating in evil dispositions. Criminal law is more concerned about the motive than about the act in the crime. How this evil bent originated does not matter; the presence of it is condemned, whether inherited i ram our ancestors or developed in experience. Habitual disregard for a law! nay so deaden the voice of conscience as to make it seem altogether hushed, but that only arouses greater resentment against the man who sins with impunity. Christian consciousness also testifies to the fact that sin is a principle as well as an act. The spiritually enlightened Christian regards his deviations from the law and character of God as due to a depravity within him and repents for it more deeply than for his acts of sin.

Sin includes pollution as well as guilt. Insofar as sin is a transgression of the law, it is guilt; insofar as it is a principle, it is pollution. The Bible clearly testifies to sin’s pollution. “The whole head is sick, and the whole heart is faint” (Isa. 1:5) ; “the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9); “the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil” (Luke 6:45); “who will set me free from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24); “the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit” (Eph. 4:22). These and other Scriptures form the basis for the teaching that we need to be cleansed. “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin” (Ps. 51:2); “purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow” (Ps. 51:7) ; “you are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you” (John 15:3) ; “that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word’ (Eph. 5:26) ; “and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). This pollution shows itself in a darkened understanding (Rom. 1:31; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 4:18), evil and futile imaginations (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 1:21), degrading passions (Rom. 1:26f.), unwholesome speech (Eph. 4:29), a de[1]filed mind and conscience (Titus 1:15), and an enslaved and perverted will (Rom. 7:18f.). These are symptoms of which the corrupt…

Page 3

 

nature is the source. This lack of ability to please God is also spoken of as “death.” Men are said to be “dead in . . . trespasses and sin” (Eph. 2:l; cf. v. 5; Col. 2:13); that is, they are totally destitute of spiritual life. That man is totally depraved does not mean that every man is as thoroughly corrupt as he can become, nor that he has no conscience or innate ability to distinguish between good and evil, nor that unregenerate man can have no admirable virtues of character such as kindness, nor that man is unable to see and appreciate virtue in others, nor that every man indulges in every form of sinfulness. It does mean that every person is born depraved, that depravity extends to every part of man, that unregenerate man has no spiritual good which would commend him to God, and that he is completely unable of his own strength to change his situation.

 

how did it originate?

The fact that it is universally present requires us to go to the fountainhead of the race for an explanation. The Scriptures teach that through one sin of one man, sin came into the world, and with it all the universal consequences of sin (Rom. 5 : 12-19; 1 Cor. 15: 21f .). This one man was Adam and this one sin was the partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:13f.). That the account of the fall in Gen. 3:l-7 is historical is evident from the fact that it is related as history, stands in a context of historical facts, and is regarded by later writers as historical. In allegorical literature characters either have no names or their names are symbolic. The names Adam and Eve are not symbolic. The narrative is straightforward and simple. -Again, the garden, the rivers, the trees, and the animals are manifestly literal historical facts; how can it be imagined that surrounded by such a context the story of the fall is allegorical? Christ and the apostles treat the account as historical (John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:3; Kev. 12:9). Furthermore, the serpent is neither a figurative designation of Satan, nor is it Satan in the form of a serpent. The real serpent was the agent in Satan’s hand. This is evident from the description of this reptile in Gen. 3: 1 and the curse pronounced upon it in 3: 14. The test consisted in the prohibition to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It seems as if there may have been a life-preserving quality in the fruit of the tree of life, for when God drove Adam and Eve out of the garden, he did this “lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Gen. 3:22). It may be that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had in it a mysterious quality which would effect the twofold result indicated by its name. 2 It is, however, more probable that this tree merely served the purpose of a test, for the partaking of it did not give Adam the ability to tell what was good and what was evil. He still had to consult the Word of God for that. Adam knew cognitively that it was wrong to disobey and good to obey, but he did not have this knowledge experientially. A lack of knowledge of good and evil is immaturity (Isa. 7:15f.), and knowledge of it is moral maturity (2 Sam. 14:17-20). The tree of knowledge was itself good, and its fruit was good, for God made it; it was not the tree but the disobedience which had death in it. In other words, God set before man two good things: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good

and evil, and not one good thing and one bad thing. He forbade the partaking of one tree, not because it was bad, but because he wanted to make a simple test of man’s obedience to his will. There is nothing in this prohibition that suggests that God sought man’s downfall. It is a fair and simple requirement of the creator. There is, instead, much to show that God made obedience easy. He created man without a sinful nature, placed him in an ideal environment, provided for all his temporal needs, endowed him with strong mental powers, gave him work to engage his hands and his mind, provided a life-partner for him,

 

PAGE 4

 

warned him of the consequences of disobedience, and entered into personal fellowship with him. Surely, God cannot be blamed for man’s apostasy. Satan’s temptation may be summed up as appealing to man in this way: it made man desire to have what God had forbidden, to know what God had not revealed, and to be what God had not intended for him to be. Satan first sought to instill doubt of God’s goodness in Eve’s mind. He said, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” (Gen. 3: 1). When she replied that he had permitted them to eat of all the trees but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Satan denied the truthfulness of God’s declaration that disobedience would result in death. “You surely shall not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (vss. 4f.). Eve apparently began to believe both these things, and then speedily took the remaining steps that led to the overt act of sin. We read that “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (v. 6). That is, through “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life” (1 John 2: 16), she fell. To summarize, the woman fell by deception; the man by affection (Gen. 3:13, 17; 1 Tim. 2:14). It is to be noted that Adam, not Eve, is regarded as the one through whom sin was introduced into the race (Rom. 5:12, 14; 1 Cor. 15:22). Christ, the second Adam, met similar temptations, but he came forth victoriously out of them all (Matt. 4:l-11; Luke 4:1-13). The progress leading toward the first sin seems to be something like this: Eve distrusted the goodness of God; she believed the lie of Satan; she yielded to her physical appetite; she submitted to an inordinate desire for the beautiful; and she coveted wisdom that was not intended for her. Adam, it seems, sinned because of his love for Eve and in the full light of the warning of God. But this does not trace sin to its roots. The first sin was the desire in the heart, the choosing of self-interests rather than God’s interests, the prefer[1]ring of self to God, the making of self the chief end rather than God. The overt act merely expressed the sin that had already been committed in the heart (cf. Matt. 5:21f., 27f.).

 

THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM’S SIN Immediate, far-reaching, and fearful were the consequences of the sin of our first parents. It is difficult to suppress the desire to know what would have happened if they had not sinned, but the Scriptures are silent on the subject, and one must refrain from speculating where God has not seen fit to give definite revelation. It may be assumed, however, that the consequences of obedience would have been as great in the right direction as the consequences of disobedience have been in the wrong direction. Farther than this we cannot go. We can, however, look at what did happen to Adam and Eve and their environment as a result of their sin. The first sin had an effect on our first parents’ relation to God, on their nature, on their bodies, and on their environment. A. ITS EFFECT ON THEIR RELATION TO GOD Before the fall, God and Adam were in fellowship with each other; after the fall, that fellowship was broken. Our first parents now had the sense of God’s displeasure with them; they had disobeyed his explicit command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and they were guilty. They knew that they had lost their standing before God and that his condemnation rested upon them. So instead of seeking his fellowship, they now tried to flee from him. Their guilty consciences did not permit them any rest, so they tried to shift the responsibility. Adam said that Eve, the woman whom God had given to him, had led him into sin (Gen. 3:12); Eve, in turn, accused the serpent (v. 13). Both were guilty, but both tried to shift the responsibility of their sin to others. B. ITS EFFECT ON THEIR NATURE When Adam and Eve came from the hand of the creator, they were not only innocent, but also holy. They had no sinful nature. Now they had a sense of

 

PAGE 5

shame, degradation, and pollution. There was something to hide. They were naked and could not appear before God in their fallen condition. It was this sense of unfitness that led them to make for themselves aprons of fig leaves (Gen. 3:7). They were not only ashamed to appear before God in their new condition, but also to appear before one another. They were morally ruined. God had said to Adam regarding the forbidden tree, “In the day that you eat from it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). This death is first of all spiritual, a separation of the soul from God. It implies not only the inability to do anything well-pleasing to God, but also the possession of a corrupt nature. Thus, “through one man sin entered into the world” (Rom. 5: 12). That sin entered the world through Adam means that sin commenced its The Fall of Man: Fact and Immediate Consequences 183 course in the race and man began to commit sin, that human nature became corrupt, and that man became guilty. Man was constituted a sinner (Rom. 5:19). Actual transgression proceeds from man’s sinful nature.3 C. ITS EFFECT ON THEIR BODIES When God said that for disobedience man would “surely die” (Gen. 2:17), he included the body. Immediately after the trespass, God said to Adam, “You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gem 3: 19). The words of Paul, “As in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22), have reference primarily to physical death. Paul’s subject is the physical resurrection, and he sets it over against the fact of physical death. When he wrote that “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin” (Rom. 5: l2), he included the full concept of death: physical, spiritual, and eternal. Further, because the resur[1]rection of the body is a part of redemption (Rom. 8:23), we can infer that the death of the body is a consequence of Adam’s sin. Yet those who reject the doctrine of original sin hold that death is a natural evil, flowing from man’s original constitution, and that it is consequently no more a proof that all men are sinners than the death of brutes is a proof that they are sinners. It is sufficient to remark that men are not brutes, and that the Scriptures teach that physical death is part of the penalty of sin (Gen. 3:19; Job 5:18f.; 14:1-4; Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:21f., 56; 2 Cor. 5:lf., 4; 2 Tim. 1:lO). What if man had not sinned? He would, no doubt, have continued in holiness and have been confirmed in holiness ; holy nature would have be[1]come holy character. But what about the body? Scripture does not tell us, but it seems that the natural (soulish) body would have been changed into a spiritual body much like the changed bodies at the return of Christ (cf. Gen. 2:7 with 1 Cor. 15:4449). Physical illness is also due to sin. The Hebrew of Gen. 2:17 may be translated, “dying you shall die.” From the moment that man ate of the forbidden tree he became a dying creature. Corruption was introduced on that very occasion. The pains which both man and woman should suffer grew out of that one apostasy. The fact that man did not die instantaneously was due to God’s gracious purpose of redemption. Because of the intimate relation between mind and body, we may assume that the mental as well as the physical powers were weakened and began to decay. This is not to say that every sickness is a direct result of a personal act of sin (Job 1, 2 ; John 9:3 ; 2 Cor. 12:7), but that ultimately and finally, physical and mental sickness are a result of Adam’s sin. This element of the penalty of sin alone undermines .‘For a good discussion of the meaning of Rom. 5:12 see Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 144-155. 184 Anthropology the theory of evolution. Man has not developed greater strength of body and mind, but has degenerated from a primitive perfect condition to the present enfeebled and imperfect condition. D. ITS EFFECT ON THEIR ENVIRONMENT We read that the serpent was cursed “more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field” (Gen. 3:14). It is evident that animal creation has suffered as a result of Adam’s sin. In the future age this curse will be removed, and the ravenous wild beasts will lie down together with the docile domestic animals (Isa. 11:6-9; 65:25 ; Hos. 2: 18). God said, “Cursed is the ground because of you ; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till

 

PAGE 6

you return to the ground” (Gen. 3:17-19). Even inanimate nature is represented as suffering the curse of man’s sin. In view of this, Scripture tells us elsewhere that the time is coming when “the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (Rom. 8:21f.) . Isa. 35 speaks of the restoration of nature to its pristine condition and beauty. Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and forced to make their way in this fallen world. At first they were in the most beautiful and perfect environment; now they were obliged to get along in an imperfect and almost hostile one. Their environment was decidedly changed because of sin.

The Fall of Man: Imputation and Racial Consequences Sin is both an act and a principle, both guilt and pollution. As we look about us, we see that this sin is a universal problem. History testifies to this fact in its accounts of priesthoods and sacrifices among the cultures of the world. And every man knows not only that he has come short of moral perfection, but also that every other man has done so as well. Such popular maxims as “No man is perfect,” and “Every man has his price,” express the conviction of all mankind that sin is universal. Christian experience uniformly testifies to the presence of sin in the heart of man, and the lack of such a conscious[1]ness in an unsaved person must be interpreted as a hardened condition. I. THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN Certainly the Scriptures teach the universality of sin. “There is no man that does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46) ; “In Thy sight no man living is righteous” (Ps. 143:2); “Who can say, ‘I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin’?” (Prov. 20: 9) ; “Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins” (Eccl. 7:20); “If you then, being evil” (Luke 11: 13); “There is none righteous, not even one; . . . There is none who does good, there is not even one” (Rom. 3:10, 12); “That every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God” (Rom. 3 : 19) ; “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) ; “The Scripture has shut up all men under sin” (Gal. 3:22); “For we all stumble in many ways” (James 3 : 2) ; “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:B). The universality of sin is shown also by the fact that condemnation rests upon all who have not accepted Christ (John 3:18,36; 1 John 5:12, 19), and that atonement, regeneration, and repentance are universal needs (John 3:3, 5, 16; 6:50; 12:47; Acts 4: 12; 17:30). When Scripture speaks of men as good, it means merely a fancied goodness (Matt. 9:12f.), or a goodness of aspiration (Rom. 2:14; Phil. 3:15). This universal sinfulness is not limited to acts of sin; it includes also the possession of a sinful nature. The Scriptures refer the sinful acts and inclinations to their source, the corrupt nature. “There is no good tree which 185 186 Anthropology produces bad fruit. . . . The evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil” (Luke 6:4345) ; “How can you, being evil, speak what is good?” (Matt. 12:34). All men are declared to be by nature “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3); and death, the penalty of sin, is visited even upon those who have not personally and consciously sinned (Rom. 5:12-14). It is concluded that the possession of a carnal nature is characteristic among men universally.

 

 

PAGE 7

DEPRAVITY

THE MEANING OF DEPRAVITY

Man’s want of original righteousness and of holy affections toward God, and the corruption of his moral nature and his bias toward evil is called depravity. Its existence is witnessed to by both Scripture and human experience. The teaching of Scripture that all men must be born again shows the universality of its existence.

 

THE EXTENT OF DEPRAVITY

 

The Scriptures speak of human nature as wholly depraved. However, the doctrine of “total depravity” is easily misunderstood and misinterpreted. It is important to know both what it does not mean and what it does mean. From the negative standpoint, it does not mean that every sinner is devoid of all qualities pleasing to men; that he commits, or is prone to, every form of sin; or that he is as bitterly opposed to God as it is possible for him to be. Jesus recognized the existence of pleasing qualities in some individuals (Mark IO: 21) ; he said that the scribes and Pharisees did some things God demanded (Matt. 23:23) ; Paul asserted that some Gentiles “do instinctively the things of the Law” (Rom. 2:14); God told Abraham that the iniquity of the Amo[1]rites would grow worse (Gen. 15:16); and Paul says that “evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse” (2 Tim. 3: 13). From the positive standpoint, it does mean that every sinner is totally destitute of that love to God which is the fundamental requirement of the law (Deut. 6:4f. ; Matt. 22 :37) ; that he is supremely given to a preference of himself to God (2 Tim. 3:24); that he has an aversion to God which on occasion becomes active enmity to him (Rom. 8:7); that his every faculty is disordered and corrupted (Eph. 4:18); that he has no thought, feeling, or 191 “^ _ 192 Anthropology deed of which Go can fully approve (Rom. d 7:lB); and that he has entered upon a line of constant progress in depravity from which he can in no wise turn away in his own strength (Rom. 7:lB). Depravity has infected the whole man-mind, emotions, and will. Depravity has produced a total spiritual inability in the sinner in the sense that he cannot by his own volition change his character and life so as to make them conformable to the law of God, nor change his fundamental preference of self and sin to supreme love for God, yet he has a certain amount of freedom left. He can, for instance, choose not to sin against the Holy Spirit decide to commit the lesser sin rather than the greater, resist certain forms 0; temptation altogether, do certain outwardly good acts, though with improper and unspiritual motives, and even seek God from entirely selfish motives. Freedom of choice within these limits is not incompatible with complete bondage of the will in spiritual things. Inability consists not in the loss of any faculty of the soul, nor in the loss of free agency, for the sinner still deter[1]mines his own acts, nor in mere disinclination to what is good, but in want of spiritual discernment, and therefore of proper affections. He cannot of his free will regenerate himself, repent, nor exercise saving faith (John 1:12f.). But the grace and Spirit of God are ready to enable him to repent and believe unto salvation.