SIN a falling away from or missing the right path). General. The underlying idea of sin is that of law and of a lawgiver. The lawgiver is God. Hence sin is everything in the disposition and purpose and conduct of God’s moral creatures that is contrary to the expressed will of God (Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Romans 7:7; James 4:12, 17). The sinfulness of sin lies in the fact that it is against God, even when the wrong we do is to others or ourselves (Genesis 39:9; Psalm 51:4). The being and law of God are perfectly harmonious, for “God is love.” The sum of all the commandments likewise is love; sin in its nature is egotism and selfishness. Self is put in the place of God (Romans 15:3; 1 Cor. 13:5; 2 Tim. 3:2, 4; 2 Thes. 2:3-4). Selfishness (not pure self-love, or the exaggeration of it, but in opposition to it) is at the bottom of all disobedience, and it becomes hostility to God when it collides with His law. All sin therefore has a positive character, and the distinction between sins of commission and those of omission is only on the surface. In both cases sin is actual disobedience (see Matthew 23:23). Original. A term used to denote the effect of Adam’s sin upon the moral life of his descendants. It is formally defined as “that whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil” (see Fall). The fact of sin in this sense is plainly declared in the Scriptures (Romans 5:12, 19; cf. Genesis 3:5; Ephes. 2:1-3; 2 Tim. 2:26; 1 John 3:4). In accord with this is the fact of the universality of sin, also proclaimed in Scripture (Matthew 7:11; Matthew 15:19; Romans 3:9, 23; 1 John 1:8; James 3:2; cf. 1 Kings 8:46; Job 14:4; Proverbs 20:9) and borne witness to by history and human self-consciousness. The nature of the connection between the sin of Adam and the moral condition of his descendants is, however, a matter upon which opinions greatly differ. The chief forms of doctrine have been as follows: Calvinists. Calvinists have held that the sin of Adam was immediately imputed to the whole human family, so that not only is the entire race depraved but also guilty on account of the first transgression. To sustain this opinion it is argued that Adam was not only the natural but also the representative, or federal, head of the human race. His fall involved the whole race in guilt (see Imputation). Arminian. The view more generally held is that the effect of Adam’s sin upon the moral state of mankind is in accordance with and by virtue of the natural law of heredity. The race inherited proneness to sin. But this proneness to sin does not imply guilt, inasmuch as punishment can justly be inflicted only on account of actual sin, which consists in voluntary transgression. This view is held by many Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and universally by Methodists. Pelagianism. The doctrine known as Pelagianism denies any necessary connection between the sin of Adam and the character and actions of his descendants. Every human being is by nature as pure as Adam was before his sin. The prevalence of sin is to be accounted for upon the ground of evil example and surroundings. Accordingly it is possible for men to lead lives of such complete freedom from sin that they may stand in no need of redemption or of regenerating grace. This doctrine is repudiated by all evangelical churches. The recognition of the reality of sin, not only in the sense of actual disobedience, but also in the sense of innate sinfulness, is essential. For only thus can be seen the necessity for a special revelation, and only thus are men prepared to accept the gospel of salvation in Christ. Forgiveness of Sin. » See: Justification » See: Repentance The Unpardonable Sin (Matthew 12:31-32; Luke 12:10; Hebrews 10:26; 1 John 5:16). The passages referred to undoubtedly point to one particular sin, and that is unpardonable. What this sin is has been a matter of much discussion. The view held by Wesley and others is that it is “the ascribing those miracles to the power of the devil which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit.” This view is by some held to be inadequate. Lange expresses the convictions of some when he says: “We have here to understand fully conscious and stubborn hatred against God and that which is divine as it exists in its highest development.” Proponents of this second view hold that this sin is unpardonable not because the grace of God is not sufficient for its forgiveness but because it springs from a state of the soul in which there is left no disposition for repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Thus they who are in anxiety lest they have committed this sin show in this very fact that such anxiety is groundless. Nevertheless, they who persist in sinning against religious light have great reason to fear lest they become fearfully guilty. But in the above-mentioned Scriptures, it is questionable that Hebrews 10:26 and 1 John 5:16 refer to the unpardonable sin. The “sin leading to death” is not spiritual but physical death, resulting from sin in a believer’s life and consequent chastisement. It has nothing to do with what Jesus called the “unpardonable sin.” This is apparently what Wesley described it to be, and, as above-mentioned, it was possible only during the earthly public ministry of the Lord.
Posted on: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 21:50:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015