Man In The State Of Sin
image of God in man? What constitutes the image of God in the restricted sense? In the more comprehensive sense? What Bible proof have we for the covenant of works? Which are the parties of the covenant? What is the promise, the condition, the penalty, and the sacrament of the covenant? In what sense does the covenant still hold? In what sense is it abrogated?
References for Further Study:
Berkhof, Reformed Dogmatics, I, pp. 191–206; Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp. 296–314; McPherson, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 201–
210; Orr, Side-Lights on Christian Doctrine, pp. 75–89; Kuyper, De Leer der Verbonden (in the series, Uit het Woord), pp. 107–229; A.
Kuyper, Jr., De Vastigheid des Verbonds, pp. 33–45.
MAN IN THE STATE OF SIN
THE ORIGIN AND ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF SIN
A. The Origin of Sin in the Fall of Man. The problem of the origin of sin is one that necessarily forces itself upon the attention of thoughtful men, and still continues to baffle those who are not satisfied with the Biblical account of it. Some earlier and later theologians simply pushed the problem back a step by saying that the souls of men sinned in some previous existence, and that consequently all men are now born as sinners. The great philosopher, Immanuel Kant, recognized the existence of radical evil in man, but despaired of explaining its origin. Evolutionists find its explanation in the tendencies, impulses, and passions inherited from
the brute. The Bible, however, directs our attention to the fall of man. It teaches us that the root of all moral evil in the world lies in the first sin of Adam, the natural and representative head of the human race.
1. THE NATURE OF THE FIRST SIN. The first sin consisted in man's eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This eating was sinful simply because God had forbidden it. We do not know what kind of tree this was. It was called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," because it was destined to reveal (a) whether man's future state would be good or evil; and (b) whether man would allow God to determine for him what was good and evil, or would undertake to determine this for himself. The first sin was of a typical character, clearly revealing the essential nature of sin. This lies in the fact that man refused to subject himself to the will of God and to have God determine the course of his life, and decided to settle this for himself. Different elements can be distinguished in this first sin. In the intellect it revealed itself as unbelief and pride, in the will as the desire to be like God, and in the affections as an unholy satisfaction in eating of the forbidden fruit.
2. THE OCCASION OF THE FIRST SIN. The fall of man was occasioned by the temptation of the serpent, who sowed in man's mind the seeds of distrust and unbelief. Though it was undoubtedly the intention of the tempter to cause Adam, the head of the covenant, to fall, yet he addressed himself to Eve, probably because she (a) was not the covenant head and therefore would not have the same sense of responsibility; (b) had not received the command of God directly but only indirectly, and would consequently be more susceptible to argumentation and doubt; and (c) would undoubtedly prove to be the most effective agent in reaching the heart of Adam. The speaking serpent has been a great stumbling-block for many and often led to a
figurative or symbolical interpretation of the narrative of the fall.
Scripture clearly intimates, however, that the serpent was but the instrument of Satan, and that Satan was the real tempter, who was working in and through the serpent, just as in the days of Jesus' ministry he worked in men and swine, John 8:44; Rom. 16:20; 2 Cor.
11:3; Rev. 12:9.
3. THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST SIN. In consequence of the first sin man lost the image of God in the restricted sense of the word, true knowledge of God, righteousness, and holiness; and, moreover, became totally depraved, that is, depraved in every part of his being and utterly incapable of doing any spiritual good. This change in the actual condition of man also reflected itself in his consciousness.
There was a sense of pollution, revealing itself in a feeling of shame, and a sense of guilt, which found expression in an accusing conscience and in fear of God. In addition to that man became subject to the law of death in the fullest sense of the word, Gen. 3:19;
Rom. 5:12; 6:23, though the full execution of the sentence was stayed. Finally, man was driven from paradise and barred from the tree of life, which symbolized the life that was promised in the covenant of works.
B. The Essential Character of Sin. There are many erroneous conceptions of the real character of sin. It is only from Scripture that we can learn just what sin is. In connection with the Scriptural idea of sin several points should be emphasized.
1. SIN IS A SPECIFIC KIND OF EVIL. In the present day many people show a tendency to substitute the word "evil" for "sin." But this is a poor substitute. While it is perfectly true that all sin is evil, it cannot be said with equal truth that all evil is sin. Sickness may be regarded as an evil, but can hardly be called a sin. Moreover, the
modern tendency to speak of evil rather than of sin finds its explanation largely in the fact that people prefer to regard sin simply as a disease or as an imperfection, for which man can hardly be held responsible. The Bible teaches us to regard sin as a specific kind of evil, as a moral evil for which man is directly responsible and which brings him under a sentence of condemnation.
2. SIN HAS AN ABSOLUTE CHARACTER. In the ethical sphere the contrast between good and evil is absolute. There is no neutral condition between the two. This is the clear teaching of Scripture. He who does not love God from the heart, is thereby already characterized as evil. The Bible knows of no position of moral neutrality. It urges the wicked to turn to righteousness, and frequently speaks of the righteous as falling into evil; but it does not contain a single indication that either the one or the other ever lands in a neutral position. Man is either on the right or on the wrong side,
Matt. 10:32, 33; 12:30; Luke 11:23; Jas. 2:10.
3. SIN ALWAYS HAS RELATION TO GOD AND HIS WILL. Modern
theology insists on interpreting sin in a social way, that is, with reference to one's fellow-men. Sin is wrong done to one's fellowbeings. But this misses the point entirely, for such a wrong can be called sin only in view of the fact that it is contrary to the will of God.
Sin is correctly defined as "lack of conformity to the law of God," and this means that it is the opposite of that love to God which is required by the divine law. It is quite evident that Scripture always contemplates sin in relation to God, and the law, either as written on the tablets of man's heart or as given by Moses, Rom. 1:32; 2:12–14;
4:15; 5:13; Jas. 2:9, 10; 1 John 3:4.
4. SIN INCLUDES BOTH GUILT AND POLLUTION. Sin is first of all guilt, that is, it is a transgression of the law, which makes men liable
to the punishment of a righteous God. Many indeed deny that sin includes guilt, but this denial goes contrary to the fact that the sinner is threatened and actually visited with punishment, and to the plain statements of Scripture, such as Matt. 6:12; Rom. 3:19; 5:18; Eph.
2:3. Sin is also pollution, an inherent corruption to which every sinner is subject. Guilt always carries pollution with it. Everyone who is guilty in Adam is, as a result, also born with a corrupt nature. The pollution of sin is clearly taught in such passages as Job 14:4; Jer.
17:9; Matt. 7:15–20; Rom. 8:5–8; Eph. 4:17–19.
5. SIN HAS ITS SEAT IN THE HEART. Sin does not reside in any one faculty of the soul, but in the heart, which in the psychology of Scripture is the central organ of the soul, out of which are the issues of life, Prov. 4:23. And from this center its influence and operations spread to the intellect, the will, the affections, in short, to the whole man, including his body. This view is clearly based on the representations of Scripture in such passages as the following: Prov.
4:23; Jer. 17:9; Matt. 15:19, 20; Luke 6:45; Heb. 3:12.
6. SIN DOES NOT CONSIST IN OUTWARD ACTS ONLY. Over
against Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians of every description the fact should be emphasized that sin consists not only in outward acts, but also in sinful habits and in a sinful condition of the heart. These three are related to one another as follows: the sinful state is the basis of the sinful habits, and these, in turn, lead on to the sinful deeds. That the evil thoughts, affections, and intents of the heart should also be regarded as sinful follows from such passages as the following: Matt. 5:22, 28; Rom 7:7; Gal. 5:17, 24.
C. Divergent Views of Sin. There are several views of sin which are not at all in harmony with the Scriptural representation of it. Just a few of these can be briefly indicated here.
1. THE PELAGIAN VIEW OF SIN. The Pelagian does not believe in original sin, and therefore does not share the conviction that every man is born as a sinner. Adam was created, and every one of his descendants is born, in a state of moral neutrality, neither positively good nor positively bad. Sin is the result of the free choice of every man. No one need sin, if he does not want to. There is no such thing as a sinful nature or a sinful character; neither are there sinful dispositions. Sin consists only in a deliberate choice of evil by a will which is perfectly free, and can just as well choose and follow the good.
2. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW OF SIN. According to the Roman Catholics original sin is primarily a negative condition, consisting in the absence of that original righteousness with which man was super-naturally endowed. It is a state of aversion to God, and therefore a state of sin. Actual sin consists only in those actions of man which are the result of a deliberate choice of the will. The unholy disposition, desires, and affections that lie back of these deeds may be of a sinful nature and tend to produce sin, but cannot themselves be considered as sin in the strictest sense of the word.
3. THE EVOLUTIONARY VIEW OF SIN. In modern liberal theology the evolutionary view of sin is very popular, though it is not always presented in exactly the same way. It was developed particularly in the works of Tennant. According to him there are many impulses and qualities which man has inherited from the brute. These are not in themselves sin, but naturally become sin under certain conditions.
There is a gradually awakening moral sense in man, which condemns those impulses and qualities. And these actually become sin, if man continues to yield to them in spite of the condemning voice of conscience. Sin consists in this, therefore, that man, as a moral being, still allows himself to be controlled by the appetites and