Famous attorney Clarence Darrow delivered the following address to the prisoners in the Cook County Jail:
There is no such thing as a crime as the word is generally understood. I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real moral conditions of the people in and out of jail. One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible... There are a great many people here who have done some of these things (murder, theft, etc.) who really do not know themselves why they did them. It looked to you at the time as if you had a chance to do them or not, as you saw fit; but still, after all you had no choice... If you look at the questions deeply enough and carefully enough you will see that there were circumstances that drove you to do exactly the thing which you did. You could not help it... [2]
This address is supportive of the doctrine of causation determinism or inevitability. During Our investigation into the five major theological-philosophical errors concerning the nature of sin, notice how this concept of causation and inevitability plays a prominent role.
This is precisely what we are currently hearing from all quarters. Psychologists, criminologists, lawyers, and sociologists are singing in unison for the rehabilitation of the unfortunate, sick element in our society. Punishment is out of the question because it is applicable only when an individual is responsible for what he does. We are living in an age when criminals possess more rights than victims; an era when a tolerant lawyer will enlist the expertise of a humanitarian psychologist to prove to an unbiased and just court that to prosecute constitutes cruel and unusual treatment.
Once again, Dr. Menninger asks:
Is no one any longer guilty of anything? Is it only that someone may be stupid or sick...? Is no one responsible, no one answerable for these acts? Anxiety and depression we all acknowledge, and even vague guilt feelings; but has no one committed any sin? [3]
The thing we ought to find most frightening of all, however, is the fact that more and more Christians are jumping on this bandwagon. One prominent Christian author refers to the "sin infection," contending that when Adam sinned "that one sin infected the whole human race, still in his loins, with the sickness of sin and death. Since then, all men are born sinners with the sentence of death upon them. It's a fatal disease with only one known cure. [4] The implications of this mentality are given in verse in Anna Russel's "Psychiatric Folksong."
At three I had a feeling of
Ambivalence toward my brothers,
And so it follows naturally
I poisoned all my lovers.
But now I'm happy; I have learned
The lesson this has taught;
That everything I do that's wrong
Is someone else's fault. [5]
In a world of lenience, tolerance and rationalization of sin, will even the church of Jesus Christ fail to call sin what it is? Will we join the ranks of those who would make people pathetic rather than guilty? Where in scripture is sin spoken of as a sickness or disease? Where no choice is involved neither can there be accountability. This is certainly basic, elementary reasoning and only those seeking sanctuary from personal responsibility and accountability could possibly find issue.
A revolutionary concept, as far as then-young Christendom was concerned, was conceived in the mind of a budding theologian by the name of Augustine. After an immoral and unstructured past that included many years studying the philosophy of Manes, Augustine turned to the teachings of Christ under Ambrose, a leading scholar of that day.
Most likely searching for an explanation of his former conduct and help in understanding his present shortcomings, Augustine began to formulate the doctrine of original sin and what is commonly known today as the Federal Headship Theory. Briefly, the Federal Headship Theory states that when Adam sinned he did so in proxy for the entire world. All men born thereafter entered the world replete with a sinful nature which was and is the causative source of their sins. Thus Adam's original sin was passed on from generation to generation—from parent to child.
Augustine, however well-intentioned he may have been, began what would become centuries of confusion and misunderstanding over the concept of sin. He taught that sin was fundamentally a physical rather than a moral problem. He even theorized that children were born in Satan's power because:
They are born of the union of the sexes which cannot even accomplish its own honorable function without the incidence of shameful lust. [6]
Again, it is highly probable that Augustine's tarnished past had a strong bearing on his teaching. Today we refer to this type of person as a reactionary. Although Augustine undoubtedly reacted in the right direction to begin with, his extremes would later cause him (and the church) grave problems. He went on to teach that sexual intercourse was a venial sin (unless the motive was procreation) and the act was always shameful since it was always tinged with passion. Only Christ was born pure since conception took place apart from intercourse. [7] Augustine's teaching provided the ground from which the Puritan movement would later grow.
When we analyze the situation in the Garden of Eden we see that when Adam sinned he became depraved in two ways:
Augustine and subsequent theologians have, in their expounding of the doctrine of total depravity, failed to distinguish between these two types of failure.
Physical (metaphysical) depravity—This gives man the bias or the bent toward being sinful, but is not in itself sinful. In other words it is an influence to, but not a cause of sin. This depravity comes by inheritance, not choice.
Spiritual (moral) depravity—This is what we do with our situation. It involves unintelligent responses to influences and suggestions. This is sin, but it is not inherited—it
comes by choice, it is created.
Men today for the most part acknowledge that it is sin when they make wrong choices. The snag is that they attribute these wrong choices to a "sinful nature" which they receive physically at birth. It is a basic fact that everything in the universe is inherently matter or inherently moral. According to the theory that subsequent to Adam's fall, sin has inevitably been transmitted from parent to child, sin is evidently matter or substance-a physical factor. With this in mind, let's consider the following argument:
If I have inherited this sinful nature from Adam, how is this sinful nature passed on to me? In which part of me is this sinful nature passed on? It must be passed on in the physical body somehow since moral character cannot be passed on. "Moral" has to do with choice and a choice cannot be "inherited (only the results of a choice).
If a choice can be passed on, here is a question that must be answered: If two Christians have a baby, is their choice to be passed on to the baby? They are much closer to the baby genealogically than Adam and their characteristics would be the more dominant or stronger.
Many have said in desperation that sin is passed on in the blood. If this were the case, it might prove interesting to isolate some sin in a test tube. We may ask, in addition, what happens to the Christian who is involved in a serious accident and receives blood given by someone who is not a Christian? If this sinful nature is present in the donor's blood, does the Christian who receives it take on a sinful disposition again? This theory also makes evangelism much easier. All that would be required to convert a sinner would be a simple blood transfusion, using of course the blood of a Christian. One solution might be to close down our churches and open up Christian hospitals. (Incidentally, did you ever wonder why Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow blood transfusions?)
Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, tells us, "Men do not now fall by their first sin; they are born fallen Sons of Adam. [8] It is only fitting that this statement should be followed by a graduate of this same school of thought commenting on the sin of Adam and Eve: "They actually had something added to them-a sin nature. And that made them sinners. Since that awful day of infamy, all men have been born with that same, sinful nature, and that is the source of our sins. [9]
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the concept of causation glares at almost every turn. We must keep in mind that which is caused cannot be free, nor can it be accountable or responsible. Here again we have man in a pitiable situation deserving sympathy rather than judgment. Isaiah Berlin, in his book Historical Inevitability, concludes that Determinism means the elimination of individual responsibility:
Nobody denies that it would be stupid as well as cruel to blame me for not being taller than I am, or to regard the color of my hair or the qualities of my intellect... as being due principally to my own free choice; these attributes are as they are through no decision of mine. If I extend this category without unit, then whatever is is inevitable... to blame and praise... becomes an absurd activity. If I were convinced that although choices did affect what occurred, yet they were themselves wholly determined by factors not within the individual's control, I should certainly not regard him as morally praiseworthy or blameworthy.
How could we have stooped and acquiesced to these ideologically and philosophical absurdities which have crept into the Church? The Word of God is to be presented in such a way that "every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Romans 3:19). If I am born with an inability to obey God, then can you conceive of a better excuse for not obeying Him? If I can't obey God then why should I be disturbed that I'm not obeying Him? Yet the Word of God declares emphatically that all men are without excuse! This indicates that all men are responsible for their own choices, which implies they are free to make their own choices.
If I was born with an inability to do what God says, how can we justify eternal punishment with the love of God? [10]
This dilemma is readily discerned by some, but the great majority try to ease the pressure and present God's justice by viewing His intention in sending Christ to let all "off the hook" who would respond to His call. The flaw in this argument is that it destroys the aspect of grace (getting something we don't deserve) in Christ's advent by virtue of the fact that, according to this position, God was under obligation to send Christ to assure all men a "fair shake."
The Federal Headship Theory, which we have briefly discussed, is an extremely widespread doctrine which is difficult to explain logically. The important factor, however, is whether or not the Bible will allow the representational theory of transmission of sin. Let's look.
Then the word of the Lord came to me saying,
"What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel saying, 'The fathers eat the sour grapes, but the children's teeth are set on edge'?
"As I live," declares the Lord God, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel any more.
"Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.
"But if a man is righteous, and practices justice and righteousness... if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully he is righteous and will surely live," declares the Lord God.
"Then he may have a violent son who sheds blood... he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
"Now behold, he has a son who has observed all his father's sins which he committed, and observing does not do likewise... he keeps his hand from the poor, does not take interest or increase, but executes My ordinances, and walks in My statutes; he will not die for his father's iniquity, he will surely live.
"As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity.
"Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness, and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.
"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." —Ezekiel 18:1-5,9-10,13-14,17-20 (NASB)
The various biblical words used to describe human sin leave absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to sin's true nature. We search in vain for any evidence that would indicate that sin is a substance or anything other than a wrong moral choice. We will further pursue the matter of biblical vocabulary later in this chapter.
There are a great many evangelists, Sunday school teachers and pastors who convey an almost accidental picture when they describe the tragedy of Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden. The way the story is often told, we find a couple walking in tender loving fellowship with God, and then, all of a sudden falling into sin. This is certainly a misleading word. I personally cannot recall having ever purposely fallen. The implications of the term "the fall" are certainly less arresting than would be the case with, say, "the rebellion." The idea that it is possible to simply slip and fall into sin must be dispensed with all rapidity lest we find ourselves clouded by its influence.
It is important to refresh our memories as to the difference between what transpired in the Garden and a legitimate mistake. We determined earlier that an individual's intentions were examined by the courts in order to ascertain whether or not his actions were willed. If the action was not willed, then the individual is not dangerous to society. Thus the consequences connected with a murder conviction are far more severe than with a manslaughter conviction because, in the former, there is a premeditated, injurious design involved. Adam and Eve's sin can never be referred to as a slip or ignorant mistake. God gave ample instruction concerning what they were to do and not to do in Eden and included sanctions or consequences to support His words. We read that "the woman being deceived was in the transgression..." (I Tim. 2:14). We are not dealing with a woman who in her naivete had no understanding of what she was doing, but rather we see a transgressor, one who was voluntarily deceived, breaking and violating known laws. Then, too, Adam voluntarily transgressed with his wife. I'm persuaded that it would be far more accurate and descriptive if we would refer to the incident in the Garden of Eden is "The Jump"! As Floyd McClung has said, "Every mistake is not a sin, but every sin is a mistake."
Temptation is a universal problem. It is not confined to continents, races or economic classes. Temptation has many faces. It spans the scale from the subtle to the blatant, and seems to have an uncanny knowledge of our susceptibilities. Biblical accounts of temptation range from the well-known flight of Joseph from the seductive advances a Potiphar's wife to the crashing downfall of David with Bathsheba. Compare these to the person who says, "I never have a problem with temptation—I just always give in!"
There are a great number of people who assume that the battery of temptations entering their minds are solicitations of the devil, and their desire to comply emanates from their "sinful nature." This is a common but serious error. God designed human beings replete with many astonishing endowments. Some of these attributes, our emotions, enable us to sense, feel and respond to the thoughts in our mind. Eve's desire for the fruit which her mind perceived as being "a delight" was not a product of any sinful nature. Nor was her desire for further knowledge wrong in itself. There is no necessity of a sinful nature in order to be subject to temptation. Gordon Olson has given what I consider to be one of the finest definitions of sin:
Sin is an unintelligent abuse of God-given endowments of personality.[11]
With this definition in mind, let us remember that it is God who has made us the way we are. It is God who has created appetites and desires within us. It is God who formed our emotions to respond to what our minds contemplate. There is no sin in desiring to fulfill or gratify a God-given appetite. Sin enters the picture when we abuse our endowments by trying to gratify ourselves in an illegal manner or proportion.
Thoughts should not be classified as sin either. It was necessary for Jesus to have comprehended the words of the devil in order for it to have been a legitimate temptation.
Again, things cannot be evil and sinful for they are the product of God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. —John 1:3
If we respond to temptation by treating it as though it were sin or indicative of sin, then we are forced into the uncomfortable position of considering Jesus an ally in sin since He too was subject to temptation. A suggestion or temptation is not in itself sinful. Things in themselves are not sinful, for sin manifests itself in unintelligent abuse of an otherwise good thing.
This is especially critical for those who have been suffering under an unnecessary load of condemnation because they have been tempted. When confronted with a strong desire, it is essential to take hold of the thought and give it a long, analytical look. Then ask yourself if it is possible to wisely gratify that desire. Remember, God does not disapprove of pleasure associated with gratification, but He does mind an unintelligent quest for pleasure in order to gratify yourself at the expense of others. It's probably worth mentioning that all so-called "secret sin" is ultimately at someone else's expense. When we realize that God wants us to be happy and fulfilled, then we will recognize His restraints as blessings designed to increase our enjoyment of life.
In a book on major biblical themes, Lewis Sperry Chafer reveals the following thought:
...every child of Adam is born with the Adamic nature, (and) is ever and always prone to sin, and... it remains a vitally active force in every Christian's life. It is never said to be removed or eradicated in this life... [12]
How interesting that the nation's number one purveyor of stylized selfishness, Robert Ringer, should say a similar thing...
You will always act selfishly, no matter how vehemently you resist or protest to the contrary, because such action is automatic. You have no choice in the matter. [13]
I remember getting into my car after work and discovering a note taped to my steering wheel. It was an apology from one of the secretaries who'd had a rough day and had made some rather terse remarks. It read in part: "I'm sorry for having snapped at you—please forgive me for being human."
Have you ever heard someone say after they did something wrong, "Well, I'm only human"? We are told today that sin is "only human." Sin is kind of a natural thing by implication. "It's just my nature." I'm sure you have noticed Christians wearing buttons on their lapels or bumper stickers on their automobiles with slogans like "Christians aren't perfect—just forgiven"!
This was the attitude that former President Carter displayed in his Playboy interview. Commenting on adultery, he stated: "I've committed adultery in my heart many times... this is something which God realizes I will do... and He forgives me for it."
Several years ago I was speaking at a youth missionary retreat in the mountains of southern California. I was talking with a camper who had several questions concerning sin. We were sitting on the bunks reading from 1 John when another young man entered the cabin to hear these words: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not..." (1 John 3:6). With red-faced indignation, he proceeded to tell me that it was impossible to live without sin, that even Christians expect to sin every day in word, thought and deed. I paused for a moment and asked this young man if he believed sin was the most powerful force in the universe. He didn't think so. What was the purpose of Christ's mission? Was it not to set the captives free, to seek and to save that which was lost? Isn't the message of the gospel, the good news, that Jesus has come to transform us by the renewing of our minds? He came not just to save us from hell, the penalty of sin, but from that which actually binds us—our sin itself!
Why do we preach a message of defeat? Why do we declare a doctrine of continuing bondage? The Bible states:
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin... —1 john 3:9
That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ. —Philippians 1:10
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. —1 John 2:3
Whosoever abideth in him (Christ) sinneth not... —1 John 3:6
Where do we get the idea that sin is only natural and human? Whenever a polygraph test registers a lie, it proclaims that sin is not natural! Whenever one feels remorse, sorrow, or guilt it tells us with eloquence that sin is not natural! To those who are of the opinion that the only thing that separates a Christian from the world is forgiveness, I can only surmise they have little time for the Word of God.
The arrogant slogan "Christians aren't perfect—just forgiven" brazenly flaunted in the face of the world, is more accurately read, "My conduct is similar to yours—only I'm forgiven and you're not!" What joy do you think God derives out of a "relationship" of that sort? Has He expressed in your relationship, or through His Word, that sin is the status quo for a Christian? What is the blood of Jesus Christ worth? Where is the power in the blood? Is it possible that we have actually accepted the fact that the love of God displayed on Calvary is an anemic force compared to the mighty power of sin?