The Wages of Sin

Before I try to determine what sin is, and therefore who is guilty of sin and can be "labeled" a "sinner," I want to examine the second sin (or Adam's sin, the first being Lucifer's). Adam obviously disobeys God's specific commandment; as a result he and Eve gain knowledge of good and evil, or Morality, and with it the responsibility to do good while knowing evil. But most importantly, at least for our purpose, is Genesis 3:17,19: "Then to Adam He said, 'Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it...In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.'" To summarize, death is imputed to Adam for his act of disobedience. Besides facing an end to physical life, Adam and Eve are furthermore cast out of the Garden (Genesis 3:24).

Adam's sin is his failure to obey the 'law of works' that was set to him by God. Ironically, in breaking this first law, or commandment, Adam brought upon the 'law of works' to all men in revealing to Man morality. Moses later gives a more defined Law to the Jews, but the 'law of Nature' continues to exist in the Gentiles (Romans 2:15). God also can give specific instruction to Man, which then becomes added to the 'law of works' for the people in question, as with the Jewish political and religious law, or when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Disobedience to this natural law is punishable by death, as with Adam. Adam is made mortal and becomes capable of death by being removed from the presence of God.

This relocation carries two consequences. First, Adam is physically relocated, and as is logical, his posterity is physically born apart from God's presence in the Garden. Likewise, Adam's posterity acquires the same mortal characteristics as Adam in that they too will die. But in reality, being born mortal is not so much a punishment as a circumstance. It is not something being taken away, but something not being given. Immortality is no more our right than it was Adam's; God gave it to Adam and for his sin took it away. The second consequence is that of Morality, or knowledge of good and evil, while at the same time lacking the local example of God. Man knows God with his mind but does not experience Him with his heart, and chooses to act according to evil rather than good (Romans 1:20-21).

As for the judgment of this sin, I'm not sure I can admit to being born worthy of eternal damnation. That Hell exists, no reasonable man or Christian can disagree; that all men deserve Hell's torment due to another man's transgression, and furthermore deserve that torture simply by their being birthed, no just man can agree. John Locke writes it in this way:

...nobody can deny but that the doctrine of the gospel is that death came on all men by Adam's sin, only they differ about the signification of the word death, for some will have it to be a state of guilt, wherin not only he, but all his posterity was so involved that every one descended of him deserved endless torment in hellfire. I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above, but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could anyone be supposed [to understand], by a law that says, 'For felony thou shalt die,' not that he should lose his life, but be kept alive in perpetual exquisite torments? And would anyone think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?

To this they would have it be also a state of necessary sinning and provoking God in every action that men do, a yet harder sense of the word death than the other. God says that, 'in the day that thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt die,' i.e., thou and thy posterity shall be ever after incapable of doing anything but what shall be sinful and provoking to me and shall justly deserve my wrath and indignation. Could a worthy man be supposed to put such terms upon the obedience of his subjects? Much less can the righteous God be supposed, as the punishment of one sin wherein he is displeased, to put man under the necessity of sinning continually, and so multiplying the provocation. (Reasonableness of Christianity, 3-4)

It is not unjust for God to remove immortality from Man, who received it as a gift anyway. But for God to punish Man in such a way that all men should only act in ways that deserve further punishment, what good is life in that sense? Being mortal is better than not being. But receiving "life" with the inherent desert of hellfire is unjust, and it would be better not to live (Matthew 26:24). That is not to say that men do not at some point become deserving of Hell (James 2:10-11). And in fact, being given freedom to live righteously and choose good over evil, yet lacking the present goodness of God (as per Adam's removal from the Garden), "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). But we must note the key terms in Paul's writing. "All have sinned," not "Adam has sinned" or "Eve has sinned" but ALL, meaning that we are guilty of our sin, not another man's. Also, "sinned" is important, because it implies that action was necessary to deserve punishment. Paul has not given us "all were born and fall short of the glory of God," but "all have sinned." Lastly, we read "and fall short of the glory of God." By this is meant eternal torment in fire? It seems to me that falling short of the glory of God (namely freedom and holiness) is equivalent to man's loss of immortality, and his loss of the LORD's consistent presence that enabled him to do good.

Man is guilty because he transgressed against the Law (whether of conscience or Moses), but not because he was born. Jesus is asked how to inherit eternal life and replies "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?...You have answered rightly; do this and you will live" (Luke 10:25-28). Romans 2:13 tells us, "for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified." And God says directly in Leviticus 18:5, "'You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.'" Again in Revelations 22:14, "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city." If a man were to follow the Law entirely, perfectly, he would live. That warrants that man has the opportunity to be obedient unto God, and that he is not born into uncontrollable perpetual sin.

It follows, that if man may receive life by following the law perfectly, that when he fails to follow the law, he should be counted guilty for his actions. But it must be noted, the judgment is for his actions, not the failure of another. Jesus says that when He returns with the Father, "He will reward each according to his works" (Matthew 16:27). Even more examples of personal judgment for workers of iniquity can be found in Matthew 7:23, Matthew 25:41-46, Luke 13:27, Matthew 5:29, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, Revelation 14:9, Revelation 20:10 and John 5:29.

Now I must entwine these statements. Scriptures show that if man follows the Law perfectly he will live; if man fails at any point to follow the Law his just desert is death and he will be punished according to his transgressions. To these truths, it must also be reconciled that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Man is not born into a state of perpetual sinning; it would be better for him not to live, but receiving life is not in man's control - thus God would be considered unjust for forcing upon man a state of being which was torment. Yet even being born with the opportunity to obey, Man cannot of his own will. Granted with the terrible result of God's trust in, and love of, man, that is Freedom, having obtained knowledge of good and evil by Adam's action, and being removed from God's presence as a consequence, Man is unable to live without choosing evil. It is different than being predestined to evil, or being born into punishment. Man acts of his own will and receives consequences for his iniquity. That he is unable to perfectly do good (which is equal to holiness, or the glory of God which we all fall short of) is logical in that he has no Presence, Power, or Example of Good by which to adhere.

Here enters Jesus Christ with a new Law. By obeying the 'law of faith' and believing in the redemptive grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the gap between the Law's standards and Man's obedience is filled. Furthermore, God's grace forgives man his failings, both past and future; for, being outside of time, all of man's failures simply represent a difference between God's standard and man's adherence. Jesus Christ makes up the difference (it is a complete and total difference) so that no work of man has an affect on his claim to eternal life any longer. Instead, being faithful to Christ grants eternal life. In His own words, Jesus says, "'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill'" (Matthew 5:17). What is Christ if not the great Mediator? Between God and Man, disobedience and Law, sin and sanctification?

In addition to being justified in Christ, Man receives the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the restoration of God's presence to man as Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden. Just as they did good while walking with the LORD, so followers of Christ may do good. John 14:23-26, "Jesus answered and said to him, 'If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me. These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.'" Through faith alone we fulfill the Law, and by faith in Christ alone do we receive the Holy Spirit which empowers us to live in accordance to God's nature. I pray, for the reader who does not know our mighty Savior, yet who tries to adhere to the Law without the Presence of God, or who simply chooses evil over good. There is nothing more necessary than relationship with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit.

In faith,
Jason

Sin

 Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?

We sin because by nature we are totally deprived from God.  Our natural state is to sin.  I can’t remember the reference, but there is a verse that says something like “just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, thus death came to all men because all have sinned.”  All have sinned. 

The reason we sin is because on our own, our rebellion against God is total. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God.  Of course totally depraved men can be very religious. They can pray and give alms and fast, as Jesus said (Matthew 6:1-18).  (I’ll go easy the issue of those who aren’t saved doing “good” because that can lead into election, predestination, and other things that we’ve already tackled.)  But their very religion is rebellion against the rights of their Creator, if it does not come from a childlike heart of trust in the free grace of God. Religion is one of the chief ways that man conceals his unwillingness to forsake self-reliance and bank all his hopes on the unmerited mercy of God (Luke 18:9-14; Colossians 2:20-23).

The totality of our rebellion against God is seen in Romans 3:9-10 and 18. "I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no not one; no one seeks for God....There is no fear of God before their eyes."  No one seeks God.  It doesn’t say, “After the first sin humans commit, they are then under the power of sin.”  No, from conception on our hearts are corrupt and sinful.

I would even contest that in mans total rebellion from God, everything man does is sin (apart from God).  I think of Romans 14:23 when Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot bring honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil.  Follow?

Because of that, man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.

In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good. It is all part of our rebellion. That also makes grace all that much sweeter and the Ultimate gift given to us all that much more central.  It creates complete and utter reliance on the atoning work of Christ.

Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment. On our own, there is nothing we can do to reach God and nothing we can do that is “good.”  Ephesians 2:3 goes on to say that in our deadness and separation, we were "children of wrath." That is, we were under God's wrath because of the corruption of our hearts that made us as good as dead before God.

The reality of hell is God's clear indictment of the infiniteness of our guilt. If our corruption were not deserving of an eternal punishment God would be unjust to threaten us with a punishment so severe as eternal torment. But the Scriptures teach that God is just in condemning unbelievers to eternal hell (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Matthew 5:29f; 10:28; 13:49f; 18:8f; 25:46; Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10). Therefore, to the extent that hell is a total sentence of condemnation, to that extent must we think of ourselves as totally blameworthy apart from the saving grace of God.

I’d be very interested in hearing your response to this.  I know we have some conflicting views on this subject.  I just hope and pray that both of us will be able to be humble enough to realize any possible error in thinking.  It’s hard to sharpen iron if it doesn’t want to be sharpened, right?  Let’s be sharpenable.

Lemme know what you think.  Can a non-believer do good with pure intentions?

Because of Him,

Joe Hylander

A Closer Look

Recently I attended a lecture that was held in honor of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, and the 150th anniversary of the publishing of The Origin of Species. The speaker's focus was on "Neandertals" and recent biological work that is attempting to recreate the DNA of a Neandertal. What struck me first was the clear distinction made between Neandertal and Human; each is considered a different species, a separate creature, individual branches on the 'tree of life'. However, the speaker's interest was on the degrees of variation (in the DNA) between these two "species." It's thought that perhaps by finding the genetic material that Neandertals had, and that Humans lacks, we can discover how we transitioned, or "evolved." Apparently the answer to the change from Ape to Human is all in the DNA, and the way that evolution caused the re-arranging of it.

And here is where I give pause to my thought. Hold on now, I think, why is it we are studying a single foundation of life? Evolution certainly separates Neandertal and Human, but only as Dogs and Cats are separated, not as Beast and Man are (by some) separated. The whole crux of evolution is that everything is natural, is matter, is not special, nor created, nor purposed, nor distinguished. Dirt is a dog is a tree is a virus is a man. And logically, if everything evolved from a single substance, nothing should have significance.

But then, how is it that a distinction can be made between what does and does not evolve? Suppose we (as the evolutionists must do) avoid the logical impossibility of a natural substance simply existing, without cause or creation; to explain how this first substance becomes what we see around us today, it's believed that it lived and grew and developed more advanced life processes. What evolution seems to do today, is to study all the ways that one species becomes another, and to examine the DNA structure as if some progress is being made by doing this research compared to past observations. It's said "X became Y because the DNA was re-arranged and came to include characteristic A." And this is done for every species along the timeline, they all have their differences in DNA that show a story of evolution.

The problem, is that the base substance-what is said to have originally existed and evolved to create life-isn't evolving, isn't even said to have evolved. Miniscule proteins and DNA molecules as a single, unchanging entity are the only basis scientists have for studying changes in creatures, and yet it cannot be found that DNA itself changes. DNA is rearranged, sure, but that's the case even today, and is not a question of evolution, of change, but simply of diversity.

This distinction is like this: a young child takes out his building blocks and constructs a small house for himself. After a few days he gets tired of playing with the house and knocks it down, and then rearranges the blocks to build a tower. Technically, the boy's outer creation has changed; the order of the blocks has changed, the height of the structure, etc. But, he's still using building blocks. The blocks haven't evolved to become steel, which would then yield to entirely new building possibilities. So it is with DNA. The essential determinent of genetics may be rearrranged from creature to creature, but Nature is still being built by DNA.

Logically, if everything is the same natural material, as evolution must postulate, then if one living thing can evolve, anything can. In fact, nothing is 'living' aside from the fact that some matter is charged with electricity and thus moves, and through millions of years of evolving cause and effect patterns, 'life' has occurred. It's reasonable to think that if a cell can become a fish, then DNA can become a more advanced molecule. But really, if that was the case, evolution would be near impossible to study, much less prove. Instead, scientists must admit to a common Design before quickly moving on to individual branches on a tree. Therefore, we must not forget that it is a common Tree that all creatures, and Man, stem from. Common function, and common structure, lend themselves very well to common Designer.

Jason

Sin

What are thoughts, Joe, on the action and judgment of sin? What is man's error, and what is the consequence of it?

And that chicken-egg question: Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?

Jason