Chapter 16
Sin
446. By what names or words is sin expressed in the original languages?
In Hebrew by חטאה, which properly signifies "a missing the mark." The Greek αμαρτια
[sin] from αμαρτανω [to sin] has much the same meaning.
447. What is the simple idea of sin?
"Want of conformity to the divine law."
448. Is sin a mere negative of good, or has it something positive in its nature?
It does consist in privation, but this privation is corrupting so that sin implies a positive as
well as a negative evil, as sickness is more than the absence of health.
449. Is sin a substance or a quality?
A quality; it has no real or essential existence.
450. What is the guilt of sin?
Guilt is the obligation to punishment for previous transgression. This obligation may
mean desert [merit] of punishment or actual exposedness to it. Hence, guilt is of two
kinds: the one inseparable from sin, the other removed by remission.
451. Is ill desert or demerit included in the idea of guilt?
Not in all senses of the term guilt. Sin may be considered either in reference to the
command or precept of the law, or to its sanction or annexed threatening. From its
connection with the first of these it derives its demerit, ανομια [lawlessness]; from the
second, its guilt. In those who are renewed there remains this guilt of demerit, but not of
exposedness to punishment, whereas Christ had the last without the first (Isa. 55:5; 2 Cor.
5:21; 1 Peter 2:22).
452. Is guilt removed by pardon?
Actual guilt is, but not guilt of demerit.
453. What is the stain or pollution of sin?
It is one of its effect[s] on the being that sins, by which the soul is infected. In regard to
this sin is called a plague, a disease, a wound.
454. Is there any foundation for the distinction between the guilt of the fault and the guilt of the
punishment?
The first is that by which the sinner is unworthy of the favor and deserving the
condemnation of God. The second is that by which he is exposed to punishment and
obligated to endure it. The papists say that the latter of these may remain though the
former be removed by Christ, which is certainly improper since no liability [to]
punishment can continue if all fault be taken away.
455. Is the death of believers a part of the penalty of the law?
No. It as well as the pains and afflictions of the present life are consequences of sin but
are intended rather for correction than satisfaction. It is mercifully ordered that believers
should die as well as others, for [otherwise] the death of an individual would then be, to
all who witness it, a certain proof of his perdition. It would also anticipate the work of the
judgment day were believers exempted from death.
456. Is there any ground for the distinction of sins into venial and mortal?
None; there are no venial sins, as is proved
1. From Romans 6:23, "The wages of sin are death" and the "soul that sins shall
die" (Ezek. 18:20)
2. Because it is written "cursed is everyone who continues not in all things written
in the book of the law to do them" (Deut. 27:26)
3. Whosoever "offends in one point is guilty of all" (James 2:10)
4. Because every sin is an offense against an infinitely perfect being and therefore
an infinite evil
5. Christ died for all our sins; therefore, all must be mortal
457. Are all sins equal in malignity and guilt?
No.41 This was the opinion of the ancient Stoics, but [it] is evidently paradoxical.
458. What was the sin of angels by which they fell?
41 [Westminster Larger Catechism, #150: "Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God? All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others. John 19:11; Ezek. 8:6, 13, 15; 1 John 5:16; Ps. 78:17, 32, 56."]
There are several opinions on this subject. The two principal are,
First, that it was envy of man, whom it is supposed they knew by revelation was
in Christ to be exalted above them.
The second is that it was pride, which is the most probable of the two
since Paul in 1 Timothy 3:6 says "lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the
condemnation of the Devil"; and we know that Satan is continually striving for
the dominion of this world of which he is called the god (2 Cor. 4:4); and pride
too was the sin to which he tempted Adam. Perhaps becoming rather remiss in
contemplating the divine perfection, his attention was turned from God to himself,
and admiring his powers, [he] conceived too high a love for them, which rose to
pride and eventuated in rebellion.
459. What was the precise nature of the first sin of man?
This must not be considered as any simple or particular sin but as a general apostasy from
God, including the violation of the whole moral law, as it implies unbelief and contempt
of the divine command, ingratitude, pride, and profanation of God's name; want of
proper affection to his posterity as by that act he ruined both himself; and also
intemperance, sensuality, and theft. Hence appears its enormity.
The commencement of this sin may be placed in want [lack] of consideration of
the interdiction of his Creator and also of His truth and goodness; then incredulity in the
threatened punishment; next, crediting the promises of Satan; then corrupt desire of the
fruit; and then pride and rebellion. Hence, it appears that the first step belongs to the
understanding, and that ever preceded transgression.
460. How can it be accounted for that innocent man should sin?42
It is very difficult to account for the entrance of sin into a holy mind. Yet the mutability
in which man was created supposes the possibility of his fall: the true cause of his sinning
is found in the freedom of his will, which was capable of being so influenced by Satan
that man should freely depart from God.
But we must not consider man even in his innocent state as a simple being, but as
possessed of all those attributes and passions belonging to uncorrupted nature. These will
exert a constant influence on the will, which renders care necessary, that they gain not the
ascendancy. Thus, the appetite of hunger might operate on the will of a person perfectly
holy and crave for indulgence under circumstances where the satisfaction of it would be
improper.
Is it wonderful that a being thus constituted should be led astray? This, however,
is the greatest difficulty attending the system of those who consider the will as
determined by motive. The Arminians, in giving the will a self-determining power, avoid
the difficulty.
461. Was the first sin owing to man's being deserted of God?
The term desertion seems to imply some previous offense in the person deserted and
therefore is not so proper as [the term] negation. Since no grace before given was
withdrawn from Adam, but God, having at first bestowed what was sufficient to enable
him to stand, saw proper not to give what was requisite infallibly to prevent his fall.
42 See Dwight, vol. 1, p. 400. [Timothy Dwight (1752–1817), Theology Explained and Defended, vol. 1, see Sermon 28, "The Temptation and Fall" and possibly Sermon 15, "The Decrees of God."]
462. Could this sin have been avoided?
It was certain in regard to the decree and providence of God but contingent in regard to
Adam. The event was certain though the cause was free.
463. Could God have prevented it consistently with man's freedom?
Yes, by having imparted a greater degree of grace; if this were not the case, then the will
of man is beyond the empire or dominion of God, which cannot be.
464. Did Adam lose the image of God by the first sin?
Yes, for it was a complete apostasy or turning from God as his chief good; it was not a
particular sin but a violation of the whole covenant and law because spiritual death was
the penalty of the law and because man is now born corrupt, which proves that Adam lost
the image of his Creator.
465. How could a single act destroy all holy dispositions?
By its great enormity or by the penalty attached to it, as every sin deserved banishment
from communion with God. Besides, there was something peculiar in this sin as it
violated the covenant.
467. Was the first sin of Adam imputed to all his posterity?
It is, though this doctrine has been rejected by the Pelagians, Remonstrants,43 Socians,44
43 [Those who followed the theology of Jacob Arminius and remonstrated, or protested, against the Reformed doctrines of soteriology in the context of the Synod of Dort and following.]
and many others. Some among the orthodox, to avoid some of the difficulties pressing
this opinion, made the distinction of imputation into immediate and mediate. This was
first done by Placeus,45 who defines immediate imputation to be that by which the sin of
Adam is directly imputed to all his posterity (Christ excepted), as well [as] in the
privation of original righteousness as [it has] exposed men to eternal death, and that
simply because they are his children, antecedent to inherent corruption. Mediate
imputation arises from a view of the hereditary corruption derived from Adam, of which
we all partake and to which we all habitually consent and are therefore considered as
participating in the sin of Adam.
468. Is this imputation mediate or immediate?
Immediate, as imputation is but a simple idea; the phrase "mediate imputation" is hardly
correct.
469. How can this imputation be reconciled with justice?
Whenever the action of one person is imputed to another, it must be on account of some
bond of union between them. This may be of three kinds:
1. Natural, as exists between parents and children
2. Moral or political, as between kings and subjects
3. Voluntary, as between friends
The first two of these constituted Adam our representative, in whose conduct it then
became just that we should be involved. That he was considered as the representative of
44 [Socinians] 45 [Josué de la Place (c. 1596–1655 or 1665) was a French Protestant theologian and professor in the Reformed tradition at the Academy of Saumur.]
his posterity appears from
1. The nature of the covenant existing between him and his Creator
2. The image of God, which he received as belonging to his nature to be preserved
or lost, not only for himself but for those who should partake of his nature
3. The community of punishment between Adam and his posterity
4. The parallel between Christ and Adam
470. By what arguments is it demonstrated?
It is proved
1. From Romans 5:12, "As by one man sin entered into the world and death by
sin, so that death passed on all men for that all had sinned." This death includes
spiritual death, which has passed on all men; therefore, all men must have been
accounted sinners previously.
2. From 1 Corinthians 15:22, "In Adam all died." Then in Adam all must have
sinned.
3. From the sins of parents being visited on their children (Ex. 20:5). See
examples in Achan (Josh. 7:24–25), the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:2), the sons of
Jews [Matt. 23:34–36; 27:25], and many others.
4. From the propagation of sin; for if the sin of Adam be not imputed, how can we
account for the pollution of depravity of Adam being communicated to his
children?
5. From Adam's being not only the natural but also the moral head of the human
family, in whom they would have been holy had he remained so, and by whose
fall they were made sinners.
6. If we deny the imputation of Adam's guilt, we must also deny the imputation of
Christ's righteousness since the apostle makes them to stand on the same
ground.
471. What is original sin?
Augustine made original sin to consist in concupiscentia, or [the] irregularity of our
desires; Anselm46 in nuditate justitiae [the absence of righteousness]. Scotus47 united the
two, which is correct. That is, original sin is the destitution of original righteousness
together with positive corruption, belonging naturally to all mere men from their
connection with Adam.
472. How do you prove the doctrine of original sin?
1. From Genesis 6:5, "Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart are only evil
continually."
2. From Job 14:4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"
3. From Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was shapened in iniquity and in sin did my mother
conceive me."
4. From John 3:6, "For that which is born of the flesh is flesh."
5. From Ephesians 2:3, "And were the children of wrath by nature even as others."
6. From Romans 5:12, "For by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin."
46 [Anselm of Canterbury (1033/34–1109) was a significant philosopher and theologian of the High Middle Ages].
47 [Duns Scotus (1266–1308) is generally considered to be one of the three most important philosophertheologians of the High Middle Ages.]
7. From the necessity of universal death, redemption, regeneration, sanctification, and
from the law of nature that every offspring should be like its parent.
8. From experience, universal corruption requires that there should be a principle of evil
equally extensive.
473. Is the substance of the soul corrupted by sin?48
No, this was the opinion of Flacius Illyricus49 in order more effectually to prove the
imbecility of the human will in conversion. But this cannot be the case, because
1. God created, and does still produce every substance, which must therefore in
essence be pure.
2. The sacred Scripture distinguishes between sin and the sinner.
3. Were this correct, Christ in assuming our nature must have taken our
corruption, and man after his sanctification would be essentially different from
what he was before.
474. How is original sin propagated?
It is impossible to say. There are two answers given to the question: the one general, that
it is by impure generation; the other more particular, placing it in
1. The conception of the body, which must be unclean and corrupted
2. The creation of the soul destitute of original righteousness that is simply not pure,
neither holy nor corrupt
3. The constitution of the man by the union of this negatively pure soul with a polluted
48 [See question #382.] 49 [Flacius Illyricus (1520–1575) was a Lutheran reformer from Istria (present-day Croatia).]
body, which as some say is like an impure vessel tainting the pure liquid that may
be poured into it.50
475. If the soul be created pure, how can it be consistent with goodness or justice to connect it
with a polluted body?
The soul is formed in the body and never had a separate existence. They, from the first
moment of their existence, constitute the human being that fell in Adam and therefore
justly inherit both his sin and corruption. "Who art thou that darkeneth counsel by words
without wisdom?" [Job 38:2].
476. How is actual sin divided?
1. In relation to its object as God or our neighbor
2. In relation to its form as of commission or of omission, as sinful in itself or only in its
mode (per accidens)
3. In relation to its principle or source as of ignorance or of knowledge, of infirmity or of
maliciousness
4. As merely resident or as reigning, as remissible or as unpardonable
477. What is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and why is it unpardonable?
It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, not merely a sin of the heart, but one completed
by words. Turretin makes it to consist
50 [Alexander limits his answers to those consistent with creationism, that God immediately creates the soul of every newly conceived person. This requires him to explain the issue of how God can create a soul, which from its first existence is sinful, although God, by His pure and righteous nature, cannot immediately create anything evil. The answer of traducianism seems more straightforward on this point: the child receives its corrupted soul from the begetting of the corrupted souls of its parents.]
1. In sinning against the knowledge of the truth, and this knowledge must not only
be theoretical and historical but also founded in conviction
2. In a total apostasy from the truth connected with a malicious rejection and
denial of it, and this not from the fear of death or desire of gain but from hatred
and contempt
3. An obstinate opposition to the truth such as that of the Pharisees and Julian the
Apostate,51 who even when dying exclaimed, "vicisti Galilaee" [You have
conquered, Galilean!]52
4. A confirmed perseverance in the sin to the end
This sin is unpardonable not from any deficiency in the mercy of God or the merit of
Christ but because it is impossible that those who commit it should be renewed unto
repentance (Heb. 6:6), and without repentance there is no forgiveness. This impossibility
of repentance perhaps can only be accounted for by saying God has seen fit to determine
that it should be connected with this enormous crime committed against the Holy Ghost,
by whom alone we are enabled to repent or believe.
478. Can sin be the punishment of sin?
Yes, though sin that is actually sin is no part of the penalty of the law. It may, however,
be either its own punishment or that of some preceding transgression, or of the sin of
some other person. This [is] proved
1. From 2 Samuel 12:11–12, where the sin of David is said to be punished by that
of Absalom
51 [Julius I (331/332–363) was a Roman emperor from AD 361 to 363 and was the last non-Christian ruler of the Roman Empire.]
52 [As quoted in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History (c. 429), Book III, Ch. 20.]
2. From Romans 1:24 and so on, where God is said to have delivered up the
Gentiles to vile affection on account of their idolatry
3. From 1 Kings 22:20, where a spirit of false prophecy was sent forth, a great sin
in those who received it, [which was] at the same [time] a grievous punishment
to them and the nation.
4. From those passages of sacred Scripture in which the punishment and the crime
are represented as united in the same act, as in the defection of the ten tribes; in
the oppression of the people by the Assyrians [Isa. 10:5–7], and so on (a
punishment of one and a sin of the other); in the numbering of the people; the
hardness of Pharaoh, and so on (see also 2 Thess. 2:11).