The origin and nature of sin

“I cannot help feeling that the final explanation of the state of the church today is a defective sense of sin and a defective doctrine of sin.” – Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Introduction

In 1973, American psychiatrist Karl Menninger wrote a book titled, Whatever Became of Sin? Although it is now almost four decades since his book first appeared, Menninger’s question remains relevant. Seeking a definition for sin, Menninger complained that,

“many former sins have become crimes, so that responsibility for dealing with them has passed from church to state, from priest to policeman, while others have dissipated into sickness or at least into symptoms of sickness, so that in their case punishment has been replaced by treatment.”

Sin has undoubtedly suffered redefinition, and responsibility for it is repeatedly passed off on countless scapegoats. Plead insanity! (Or at least temporary insanity). Blame your genes, early childhood or inherited temperament. Surely your parents or society as a whole has failed you. Why else would you engage in evil behavior? The combination of excuses seem to constitute an infallible alibi. Yet while there is plenty of blame to go around, we are all guilty of sin. 

In his highly acclaimed book about sin, Cornelius Plantinga Jr. suggested,

“The heart of sin is the persistent refusal to tolerate a sense of sin, to take responsibility for one’s sin, to live with the sorrowful knowledge of it and to pursue the painful way of repentance” (Not The Way It’s Supposed To Be, p. 99).

Throughout history, some accused the church of making too much of sin. Friedrich Nietzche argued that, “Christianity needs sickness – making sick is the true hidden objective of the church’s whole system of salvation… one is not converted to Christianity, one must be sufficiently sick for it.” Nietzche was correct about the “sin-sick” finding their cure in the Christian message of salvation. “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners,” (I Timothy 1:15).

But Nietzche had it all wrong when he accused the church of making people sick to convert them. It is an empirically verifiable reality that, “All have sinned,” and “No one is righteous, not even one.” (Romans 3:23,10). We do not need to be made sin-sick, we need to recognize we are sinners in need of salvation. This is part of the church’s mission. The bad news of sin makes the Gospel the good news it is intended to be.

I. Origin of sin

A. Divine Involvement

1. God is not the author of sin as the instrumental cause.

• • • James 1:13: Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
    • James 1:17: Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.

2. God’s plan allowed for sin by permissive decree

• • • Ephesians 1:11: Also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.
    • Isaiah 45:5-7: “I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these” (KJV “create evil”).
    • See also: Acts 2:22-24; 4:27-28; James 1:20 w/Psalm 76:10; Genesis 50:20; II Thessalonians 2:7-12; I Peter 2:6-8; Jude 4; Jeremiah 13:15-16; II Kings 22:19-23. Note: God’s sovereignty does not mitigate human responsibility. Illustrations:Joshua 24:14-15; II Samuel 24:1-4 w/10:15; (Genesis 22:15; Exodus 16:4; Deuteronomy 8:2; II Chronicles 32:11; Ezekiel 18:30-32; 33:11; Isaiah 30:18; 65:2)

B. Angelic Involvement

1. Satan: Genesis 3 (Revelation 12:9; 20:2). The appearance of Satan in fallen condition in Genesis 3 indicates that sin existed prior to the sin of Adam and Eve. Satan was evidently the first creature to sin. His primary sin was an irrational conceited ambition to usurp the place of God (Isaiah 14:4-7; Ezekiel 28:11-19). Satan’s sin is described in connection with lying (John 8:44), deception (II Thessalonians 2:3-9), conceit (I Timothy 3:6), envy and selfish ambition (James 3:14-16). Satan clearly rebelled against the rule and authority of God.

2. Demons: (Matthew 25:41 – “The devil and his angels,”cf. Jude 6; II Peter 2:4; Revelation 12:4,9; Matthew 12:26-27).

C. Human Involvement

1. Adam and Eve: Genesis 2:17 – God’s prohibition; Genesis 3:1-6 – Man’s transgression.

The first man and woman, being tempted by Satan, chose to disobey God’s one command (Gen. 2:17; 3:1-6). “Whatfollows is the further unfolding of what lay in this first act and the full evidence of it. A being that had been made holy, just, and true and had been equipped with the strength necessary for maintaining its moral integrity and right relation to God, freely chose to ignore and to despise His goodness and to mistrust Him, and so severed its vital relation to Him.” (H.C. Leupold, Genesis, Vol. I, p. 148.)

Genesis 3-4 – Immediate consequences: God warned Adam of the consequence of death upon disobedience to the one command (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23 – “The wages of sin is death”). It is evident that Adam and Eve did not immediately die physically when they disobeyed God. Perhaps Adam noticed the lack of immediate consequences in Eve and participated with her.

Comparing Genesis 2:17 with passages like Romans 5:12 and Ephesians 2:1-3 leads to the conclusion that spiritual death was the immediate consequence of Adam’s sin. Spiritual death then led to physical death and potential for the second death.

According to Genesis 3, the immediate consequence of Adam’s disobedience was accompanied by:

a) Physiological results – death, decay, suffering, sickness – all of this traces back to the original act of disobedience (Gen. 3:17-19; Rom. 5:12; 8:19-22).

b) Psychological results – shame, guilt, and fear (Gen. 3:7).

c) Sociological results – blame shifting and alienation (Gen. 3:8, 12-13). Sin separates people. (Consider the pattern in the O.T., e.g. Cain and Abel, Sarah and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael, etc.)

d) Ecological results – The ground is cursed – thorns, and thistles (Gen. 3:17-19).

e) Spiritual results – enmity between the seed of woman and seed of Satan. Alienation from God – hiding, no desire for God’s companionship – these trace back to original sin (Gen. 3:8, 15, 4:1-15; I John 3:12).

f) Epistemological results: distorted thinking (cf. II Cor. 4:3-6; Rom. 1:28)

g) Criminal results: Homicide: Genesis 4 (Specifically: fratricide)

Results in Genesis 4: The results observed in the first offspring of Adam and Eve are tragic expressions of human sinfulness: rebellion, anger, envy, hatred, bitterness, lying and murder. One can only imagine the grief that filled Eve’s heart at the death of her second-born son (Abel) at the hands of her first-born son (Cain). I John 3:11-13 identifies Cain as a member of Satan’s family (cf. John 8:44).

Summary

The fall immediately distorted the unity of God’s creation. Man’s intellect, emotion, and will, once designed to love and serve God, immediately became dedicated servants of self (cf. II Corinthians 5:15). When we examine the biblical record of the results of the fall and look at the world around us, we are impressed with the accuracy and enduring relevancy of the Bible. Man’s departure from God is at the root of all human problems. If we are honest with ourselves, borrowing the words of Ted Peters, “We can begin to see the connection between the inner life of our own soul and the radical evil that threatens to undo society” (Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society).

The fall is the bad news that prepares the way for the good news: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thought: “The doctrine of original sin is the only philosophy empirically validated by the centuries of recorded human history.” – G.K. Chesterton

2. The human race: Romans 5:12 -Adam’s act of disobedience has significance beyond his own life.

This text (Romans 5:12) announces a relationship between Adam’s sin and all humans. The cause/effect relationship between sin and death (beginning with Adam), is consistently observed throughout human history. Adam’s sin unleashed sin and death in the world. No one begins life as Adam and Eve did. God doesn’t give the offer found in Genesis 2:17 to others. All people (since Adam) begin life with the principle of sin and death at work in them (cf. Psalm 51:5; Jeremiah 17:9). In some sense, Adam acted in a representative role for the human race. There exists a solidarity of humanity in the sin of Adam that is undeniably clear. Everyone is born with “an ugly, God-resisting bent.” In Romans 5:12 we learn why people so consistently turn to evil (cf. Romans 3:9-19).

Illustration: A classic illustration of the profound depths of sin is found in the O.T. Most are familiar with the account of David’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba. When King David confessed his sin he acknowledged that his problem went deeper than his actions. He said, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). His act of adultery (and the murder of Bathsheba’s husband), gave witness to his sinful nature – a nature common to every person.

The scripture says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Universal sin, death, and condemnation result (Romans 5:12 – “death passed upon all men”; Romans 5:18 – “condemnation to all men”; Romans 5:19 – “the many were made sinners”).

II. THE NATURE OF SIN

We are still left with the problem of definition. What is sin? The Westminster Shorter Catechism states that “sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God” (par. 14). ” Sin is a departure from the norm; deviant, perverse. An injustice, ingratitude, iniquity. It is disorder, disobedience, faithlessness, lawlessness, godlessness. It oversteps and fails to reach God’s holy standard. Sin spoils the goods, stains the garments. It is a hitch in one’s gait, a wandering from the path, a fragmenting of the whole. It is an anomaly, an intruder, a notorious gatecrasher. Sin is a parasite. Sin vandalizes shalom – it is a spoiler of creation.” (Selected quotes from: Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be by Cornelius Plantinga).

H. Thiessen’s comments are helpful in tracing the nature of sin: “It is difficult to determine what is the essential principle of sin. Augustine and Aquinas held the essence of sin to be pride; Luther and Calvin regarded its essence to be unbelief (Strong, op. cit., p. 569). But none of these trace sin to its ultimate nature. Inasmuch as scripture teaches that the essence of godliness is love to God, we seem to require as the essence of sin the love of self. Shedd says: “Adam first inclined to self instead of God, as the ultimate end” (Op. cit. II, 169). “…we have turned everyone to his own way” (Isa. 53:6).

“That selfishness is the essence of sin is evident also from the fact that all the forms of sin can be traced to selfishness as their source. Thus man’s natural appetites, his sensuality, selfish ambitions and selfish affections are rooted in his selfishness. Even an idolatrous affection for others may be due to the feeling that they are in some sense a part of ourselves, and so regard for them be only an indirect love of self. When selfishness is considered as an undue preference of our interests, we have in selfishness the essence of all sin” (Lectures in Systematic Theology, pp. 246-247).

“The emphasis of scripture is on the godless self-centeredness of sin. Every sin is a breach of what Jesus called ‘the first and great commandment,’ not just by failing to love God with all our being, but by actively refusing to acknowledge and obey him as our Creator and Lord. We have rejected the position of dependence which our createdness inevitably involves, and made a bid for independence. Worse still, we have dared to proclaim our self-dependence, or autonomy, which is to claim the position occupied by God alone. Sin is not a regrettable lapse from conventional standards; its essence is hostility to God (Rom. 8:7), issuing in active rebellion against him” (John R.W. Stott , The Cross of Christ, p. 90). (See Mark 7:14-15, 21-23 – the extent, nature, origin, and effect of evil in humans.)

When people live as if the world revolves around them, as if they are (or ought to be) the center of the universe – sin is viewed in full expression. As the prophet Isaiah wrote “…we have turned everyone to his own way” (Isa. 53:6). Self-centeredness is what destroys both relationships and societies. “I”, “ME”, and “MINE”: these are our most often used words. If it is true that self-centeredness is the primary human problem, how misguided it is for the modern era to promote self. According to many current books and counselors, our deepest problem is a lack of self-love.

We are told that we need to “increase our self-awareness,” ” build our self-esteem,” “enhance our self-image.” While it may be true that some people have an unhealthy view of themselves, the “self-esteem” solution suffers from over simplification.

Others give the “self” message a religious twist by changing Jesus’ familiar command to “love your neighbor as yourself” into two commands, “love your neighbor and yourself.” I heard of one church that invites the congregation to greet one another with the words, “God loves me and so do I.”

A casual survey of the gospels will reveal the message of Jesus on the subject to be, “deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). Most are aware of the biblical teaching that “Christ died for our sins,” but it also says, “Christ died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves…” (II Cor. 5:15).

---

CONCLUSION

In our sophistication. we may think we’ve grown beyond archaic ideas about sin, but the world-wide, pervasively destructive reality of self-centeredness witnesses against us. Why are so many marriages failing, children being abused, the unborn being aborted, prisons filled beyond capacity and crime rates increasing? Primarily, the problem is sin (the rejection of God and the replacement of the self as ruler).

When will we humble ourselves before God and accept His judgment of our condition and receive his salvation? Menninger offered a perceptive thought: “The reinstatement of sin would lead inevitably to the revival or reassertion of personal responsibility. In fact, the usefulness of reviving sin is that responsibility would be revived with it.”

As we examine what the Bible teaches about the origin and nature of sin, we gain a new appreciation for the grace of God. “In short, for the Christian church (even in its recently popular seeker services) to ignore, euphemize, or otherwise mute the lethal reality of sin is to cut the nerve of the gospel. For the sober truth is that without full disclosure on sin, the gospel of grace becomes impertinent, unnecessary, and finally uninteresting.” (Not the Way Its Supposed To Be, Cornelius Plantinga Jr., p. 199.)

Because we are all sinful, God would be completely just in condemning every person to eternal punishment. Only grace could rescue us from His judgment – and grace is what He offers. Scripture specifically states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). Those who find the vocabulary of salvation distasteful have a very unrealistic view of the human predicament. We don’t need religion – we need rescue, redemption and reconciliation by the blood of Jesus.