Chapter 12.

Sin
GODS providential government of the world takes account of sin and its consequences. Because of its importance we give it treatment in a separate chapter. A number of topics call for discussion under the general head of Sin. The first relates to

1. The Origin Of Sin

No explanation of the origin of sin has ever been given which is free from difficulties. The old objection against Christian theism is familiar. It takes the form of a dilemma: If God was good and failed to prevent sin, he must have been lacking in power. If he possessed the power and refused to prevent it, he was lacking in goodness. This sounds very simple and convincing until examined. But it ignores the abundant evidences of Gods goodness and power all about us and within us. It ignores the possible uses of sin in a universe of free beings. It ignores the operations of Gods grace in human experience, and the redemption God hag wrought in and through Christ. It leaves out of account the vast demonstration through historical time of a divine purpose of love in a spiritual and eternal kingdom among men.

Theories of the Origin of Sin

1. Some have urged the theory that sin is due to mans possession of a material body, that all sin arises out of sensuous desire, and that the only way to be rid of sin is to be rid of the body.
The theory is untenable. The ancient Gnostic heresy was based on the belief of the inherent evil of matter. But the Scriptures nowhere support the view. Matter as such has no moral quality. The flesh in the Scriptures does not, when used in an ethical sense, refer to the body, but to the fleshly mind and will. (Rom. 8: 6, 7.) Some of the worst sins are not sins of the flesh, but of the spirit, such as strife, jealousy, envy, and other familiar forms of sin. (Gal. 5:20.) Men are commanded to present their bodies as living sacrifices unto God (Rom. 12: 1) and to glorify God in their bodies. (1Co. 6:20.) It is clear from this that a material body is not inherently sinful.

2. Another theory asserts that sin is human limitation. Man is sinful because he is ignorant and finite. Sin is not a positive thing, but only the negation of good.

The reply is that the theory changes by its definition the nature of sin itself. It confounds other things with sin. Sin cannot be defined as ignorance merely, because an element in sin is the conscious choice of evil instead of good. Growth in knowledge does not necessarily cure men of sin. Sin is not negation merely, because there are forms of it which are very malignant and aggressive. This theory of sin is based on a form of idealistic pantheism which cancels all finite forms of experience in an Absolute which ultimately swallows them up. Man and his sin are simply finite modes of the infinite and absolute being. They have only a relative reality and value, and will gradually give way to the higher forms of being. This form of pantheism is self-contradictory because it makes the Absolute holy and sinful, omniscient and ignorant, at one and the same time. It certainly contradicts mans moral sense, which pronounces him guilty when he does wrong. It is contrary to the belief in personality and immortality. It has no basis of biblical support whatever.

3. The most satisfactory view of the origin of sin is that which connects it with
the creation of free intelligent beings with the dower of contrary choice. Historically, we have the record of the origin of human sin in the Genesis account of the fall of man. There has been much discussion of the point whether the writer there meant some elements of the account to be taken in a symbolical sense. But the essentials of the story are almost self-evidently true to any one who reflects upon the nature of human choices and of sin. Alternative courses of action are presented. Intelligent free creatures are urged to choose the one and refuse the other. The desire for knowledge; the moral struggle within; the subtle urging to the evil choice by an outside agency; the gradual yielding of the will; the subsequent shame and degradation all these are true to human experience as men know it to-day, except that in the first instance there was no preceding sin. Sin here was the perversion of the good: the desire for food, the craving for knowledge, and the love of the beautiful. (Gen. 3: 6.) (1) We have little light upon the question of a fall among created intelligences prior to the fall of man. There are allusions in Scripture which seem to point to such a fall. Satan, the prince of evil spirits, is represented as a malign influence ruling the world and holding man in his power. His agency in the fall of man is clearly implied in various biblical teachings. (2) We are here concerned chiefly with mans sin and its results. As we have seen, man as created in Gods image was a free, moral, and intelligent being. He had capacity for independent action in the exercise of his freedom. The capacity for sinning was an element in his freedom. Of course the actual commission of sin was not necessary to freedom. But the ability to make an

evil choice was necessary. The alternatives were first, to create man without the capacity for discerning good and evil, which would have left him on the level of the lower animals, with instinct merely as his guide; or secondly, to create him with capacity for moral and spiritual discernment, but with no capacity for evil choices, which would have been enforced righteousness. This would have left him without real freedom and responsibility. His righteousness would not have been freely chosen, and hence would have been lacking in the most valuable element in real righteousness. (3) The mystery of sin, then, is not entirely cleared away, but it is in some degree relieved of its dark aspects when we find the key to it in the dignity and greatness of man as, originally created. Moral freedom is the mark of mans elevation in the scale of being. Sin and the fall were not thus made necessary, but they were made possible. A universe in which they were possible was better than a merely mechanical universe in which free action of the creature had no place. Only in such a universe could a moral kingdom arise, possessing the highest manifestations of Gods grace and human attainment. No theory which derives mans body from preceding physical forms or places him at the end of an ascending series in creation can change the above conclusion. He became man when he attained moral and spiritual consciousness. Sin remains sin under any theory as to the origin of the body. The fall and its consequences remain. They cannot be explained away. (4) Observe then that sin and the fall afforded an opportunity for God and for man. For God, in that his grace alone could meet the situation. What was required was not that man be rescued merely from the consequences of an accident, or mistake, or unavoidable calamity. This would have called for a measure of divine compassion and power, but not the supreme act of grace in redeeming man from sin. Mans offense did not call for rescue from any kind of human act which was neutral or unmoral in quality. His act was sinful, and it was hateful to God. He was guilty and corrupt in consequence of his deed. But the resources of love were equal to the occasion. No other kind of provocation could have called for such a display of divine love. As Paul says, Where sin abounded grace abounded more exceedingly. Through sin and the fall the depth of the riches and glory of the divine nature became manifest. (5) Again, the fall afforded man an opportunity to respond freely to the call of God, and to yield to his grace. It was now possible for him to choose freely the divine righteousness, to work out the salvation God was working in him, through his grace in Christ, and to achieve a righteousness which would entitle him to an eternal reward. It is idle to speculate what the results would have been had man chosen freely the right instead of the wrong in the first instance. We must deal with the facts as we have them. Sin and grace are the poles of

the human and divine relationship. Each conditions the other. No other conception of the dealings of God with man can possibly do justice to the gospel of Christ. Its meaning in large measure loses its force under any other view.

2. Christs Natural And Spiritual Relationship To The Human Race

At this point it is well to develop a truth which bears an important relation to a number of important doctrines. It is the distinction between the natural and the spiritual relations of Jesus Christ to the human race. It is a clear teaching of the New Testament that Christ was the medium and goal of all creation. All things have been created through him and unto him. In him all things consist, or hold together. (Col. 1:16, 17.) By him God made the worlds. (Heb. 1: 2.) He is the source and ground of all mans natural powers. He is the true light which lighteth every man coming into the world (Joh. 1: 9). The divine image in mans original constitution was derived from Christ. Christ sustains nature and man in all their activities. Our natural powers of reason, of will, of conscience, of emotions, are derived from him.

1. This relation of Christ to us as human beings in our natural state is the key
to the meaning of many things in human history and experience. It explains conscience. Mans ineradicable sense of right and wrong, his moral constitution, in short, with all its variations and divergencies, comes from his original relation to Christ. Mans ability to perform many forms of duty on the natural plane is traceable to the same source. Again, mans rational capacity is due to the eternal Logos, the divine reason as revealed in Christ whereby man was constituted in the image of God. From the same source is derived mans irrepressible longing to know God, and the universal manifestation in one form or another of the religious instinct in man.

2. This, truth which is beyond all question a teaching of the New Testament, has sometimes been taken in a sense which is foreign, to another group of New Testament teachings. The natural has been substituted for the spiritual relationship of Christ to mankind. The result has often been an eclipse of the central truths of the gospel itself. Mans natural constitution in Gods image has been taken as the essential if not the sole element in mans sonship to God, and the original creative act as the sufficient explanation of Gods Fatherhood. All religions are placed on a common level and the supernatural revelation of God in Christ is ignored. Mans natural quest for God, and his moral activities in certain respects are made the basis of a claim that he is naturally capable of all possible growth and spiritual achievement. Thus the necessity for the new birth by the action of Gods Spirit is set aside. Salvation thus becomes a

natural evolution from lower to higher forms, an unfolding merely of mans natural powers, and destitute of the redemptive elements so clearly taught in the New Testament and so sharply defined in Christian experience. The divine immanence is invoked to enforce the view, and the methods by which the gospel produces its results in the world are radically changed and in large measure rendered ineffective.

3. An illustration will make dear the above statements. It relates to the status of
infants according to the teachings of the gospel. Are they in the kingdom of God when they are born? Or must they voluntarily choose the kingdom as responsible individuals when they are capable of doing so in later years? It is not a question whether infants dying in infancy are saved. All schools of theology admit that they are. The provisions of Christs atoning work extend to them, and God works in them the needed change. But the facts of a hereditary bias to sin and of actual sin in all children as they become morally responsible, show the need of something more than natural birth in order to membership in the kingdom. Especially is this need shown in the universal requirement of free moral choice on the part of every one who is capable of such choice as a condition of such membership. The very essence of discipleship is the voluntary acceptance of Christ. To them who received him he gave the right to become the children of God (Joh. 1:12) In other words, the kingdom of God is constituted not on the principle of natural propagation, but of moral and spiritual sonship which is the result of a divine inworking upon condition of faith. Our own free response to the gospel and our own life of voluntary selfrenunciation are the core and center, the golden heart of our religion. The natural relations and status of all men are simply a precondition of the spiritual relation and status. This voluntary element appears in the words of Jesus, even in the passage where he employs the little child as a type and symbol of the attitude of all toward the kingdom. Men must be converted and become as a little child in order to enter into the kingdom. A warning is added for those who would cause one of these little ones who believe on me to stumble. (Mat. 18:14; see also Mar. 9:33-37; Luk. 9:46-48; 18:15 ff.; Mar. 10:13-16; Mat. 19:13-15.) Faith in Christ is necessary. We conclude then that any interpretation of the natural relation which puts it in the place of the moral and spiritual, robs Christianity of its ethical and personal qualities. It substitutes biology and natural law for freedom and grace. It takes away the highest and most distinctive elements of the gospel.

4. We do not deny, of course, but affirm the truth that the human race is
naturally constituted in and through Christ. This is the major assumption in the gospel of Gods grace. The moral, mental, religious, and emotional elements in man are the natural basis on which the gospel operates. But the presence of sin

has changed the conditions and has given rise to the need of a new approach of God to man. The incarnation of God in Christ is the outstanding mark of this great truth. The new creation of man in and through Christ lifts him above the natural level to the spiritual. The new sonship and Fatherhood possess elements which are not present in the earlier natural relation. The new moral kingdom is not effected merely through the immanence of God in the natural order. It required the coming of the Son of God from without into human conditions. First that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. There is harmony between the two orders of creation. But it is to empty the spiritual creation of most of its meaning if we confound it with the natural. God in Christ is lifting the universe to a higher level. He is completing creation in and through Christ. But we must not forget that it is a new creation and not merely an unfolding of the natural order. Thus it appears that Gods good will toward men has taken the form of grace, because sin has radically altered mans relations to God. The gospel is the divine initiative for mans salvation because sin has created the need. The coming into human life of a new creative force from without was the only means for bringing about the result. Christs original relation to the race is what made possible his redemptive relation. He could become one with humanity and act for humanity, because humanity had already been constituted one through his creative act.

3. The Biblical Teaching As To Sin

We cannot treat the subject exhaustively, but give the essential points. A few definitions of sin may be noticed at the outset. Sin has been defined as selfishness. This is certainly correct as far as it goes. But taken by itself, selfishness is too indefinite a term to cover certain meanings which enter into the definitions of sin. Sin has also been defined as lack of conformity to Gods moral law. This also is correct as a partial definition of sin. But lack of conformity to law is not an adequate definition. John indeed says that sin is transgression of the law, or, as in the Revised Version, sin is lawlessness (1Jo. 3: 4). Paul teaches the same in numerous places. (Rom. 7: 8, 9, 13, 23, 25.) But elsewhere he develops other phases of sin. Law as such does not lead us to the root of sin. Behind the law is the personal God. Sin is a breach of our personal relations with God. Again, sin has been defined as an act, disposition, or state which is morally wrong. This is certainly an element in human sin. Not merely our separate acts, but our moral bias, the bent of our nature, constitutes a real part of the sin of man. But this also needs rounding out with other truths in order to render it acceptable as a definition of sin.

1. In the Old and New Testaments alike, sin is thought of chiefly as a breach or
rupture of relations between the sinner and the personal God. We look briefly at the Old Testament teaching. Sin manifests itself in many ways, but the ruling thought in them all is the departure of the sinner from Jehovahs will. There was indeed transgression of law, but it was Jehovahs law. There were many forms of selfishness, but these were in their essence the exaltation of self against Jehovah. There was the sinful disposition, the wrong motive, but it consisted chiefly in alienation of heart from Jehovah. In the story of the fall mans sin is direct disobedience to Jehovahs command. In Gen. 5:24 a righteous man is described as one who walked with God. Thus righteousness is personal fellowship, and by implication, unrighteousness is the lack of such fellowship. (1) Sin is a breach of covenant relations between God and the people. God made many covenants with Israel. The Mosaic covenant best expresses the covenant idea. That idea was a nation in religious fellowship with God. Here all the provisions of the law, ceremonial and moral, related to men inside the covenant. Sins of ignorance, or infirmity, or inadvertence, were provided for. When these were committed fellowship with God was restored by means of offerings. But sins with a high hand were not recognized in the covenant legislation. Idolatry, for example, was visited with the extreme penalty of death, because it was the deepest of sins against God. (2) The personal relation involved in sin became clearer in the course of the history. David committed a grievous sin against his fellow man, but in the psalm which expresses his deep penitence, he exclaims, Against thee only have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight (Psa. 51: 4). The prophets especially emphasize the deeper moral and spiritual aspects of sin. With Amos sin is injustice and wrong as between man and man. With Hosea sin is sin because it is alienation of heart from God. It is sin against his love. Thus we see that while the Old Testament never loses sight of the moral law and mans duty to his fellows, yet it couples transgression of law in this regard with the more fundamental religious aspect of sin. (3) The Old Testament is rich in its ethical terms and the variety of its definitions and descriptions of sin. The Hebrew pethi means the simple undeveloped man. Kesil means the sensuous man. Nabhal means the fool, or man destitute of wisdom, not only in the intellectual, but in the religious sense. These are secondary meanings. More fundamental are the following: Chata means to miss the mark, and is like the New Testament word hamartano. Aven means crookedness or perverseness. Tsedeq means linear straightness, which then comes to mean righteousness. Sin is its opposite. Ra means violence or breaking out as of evil.f18

As indicative of the wealth of moral ideas in the Old Testament and the deep sense of sin, Doctor Davidson says:f19 Here we see that, in the sphere of religion, sin is idolatry; in the sphere of speech, truth is righteousness and sin falsehood; that, in the sphere of civil life, justice is righteousness, and sin is injustice; and that, in the sphere of the mind of man, sin is the want of sincerity, either toward God or man, guile; purity, the opposite to this, being purity of heart, simplicity, openness, genuineness.

2. Sin in the New Testament Teaching

There are two or three general statements as to the teaching of Jesus. First, Jesus portrayed the ideal human life as a life of fellowship with God the Father. Sin is the want of this fellowship. The conceptions of heaven and hell are thus transfigured. Hell in its worst element is alienation from God. Heaven is the blessedness of communion with the Father. Secondly, Jesus traces sin to the inner motive of men. The sinful thought is in quality the same as the outward act. Thus Jesus greatly deepened the sense of guilt. Thirdly, the exalted standard of his own life became the measure of human obligation and at the same time the criterion for judging sin and guilt. (1) Jesus called sinners to repentance. He was the friend of publicans and sinners. (Mat. 11:19.) He did not regard all men as equally bad, nor did he consider them as wholly destitute of all good. (Luk. 7: 9; 19: 1-10; 23:42, 43; Mar. 10:21.) But he did regard men as lost. He came to seek and to save that which was lost. Men were of priceless value in Gods sight, notwithstanding their sin. The mission of Jesus was to bring them back to God. In his teaching sin is universal. All men need to be saved. (2) In the Fourth Gospel sin is represented in various ways. It is darkness as opposed to light. Men are represented as wilfully blind to the truth. (Joh. 9:41.) It is bondage as opposed to freedom. (Joh. 8:34.) Men are the willing captives of sin and Satan. Jesus contrasts flesh and spirit in the Fourth Gospel and teaches that the spiritual birth from above is necessary to all men. (Joh. 3: 6.) The world as the sphere of the operation of sin and Satan is regarded as sinful and corrupt. (Joh. 18:36; 17:25; 14:17; 12:31.) Sin is also summed up as unbelief. (Joh. 16: 9.) This expresses an attitude of resistance to truth and to the Spirit of God. Unbelief is the inclusive sin, the root sin. Because of it men are morally and spiritually blind. The duty of men is to believe. Jesus is the

revelation of God to men, and their attitude toward him becomes the basis of judgment. (Joh. 3:19-21.) Now it is clear that in all the preceding the moral and spiritual likeness of God resulting in true fellowship with him is the ideal of Jesus. Sin is the lack of such character and fellowship. (3) In Pauls teaching as to sin several points need emphasis. One is his use of the word flesh. With Paul the use of this term flesh is based on the Old Testament. It refers first to the fleshly as distinguished from the spiritual element in man as weak and infirm, and the seat of evil desires and passions. But there is no dualism of a philosophic kind in this. Paul does not regard the body as evil because it is material. As matter simply it has no moral quality. But as the body is the source of certain impulses which lead to sinful motives, desires, and acts, the term flesh came to be used by Paul for the lower nature as contrasted with the higher. But the sinfulness of men inheres in the mind and will, not in the material body as such. The carnal mind is enmity against God. The mind of the flesh is that which cannot please God. (Rom. 8: 1-11.) Paul represents men as dead in trespasses and sins, and exposed to the wrath of God. (Eph. 2: 1-3.) He does not mean by this a merely passive state. Sinners are often intensely active and aggressive. Nor does he mean that men naturally are wholly destitute of moral light. For he declares that men by nature do the things of the law, since they have the law written on their hearts. (Rom. 2:14, 15.) Paul is simply recognizing here the natural morality of men as contrasted with their spiritual life in Christ. It is the same fact which Jesus observed in the case of the young ruler. He looked upon him and loved him because of his moral attainments. But the man was lacking in the higher spiritual life as appears from his moral failure under the test of Jesus. (Mar. 10:17-22.) It is in instances like these that we see sharply distinguished the difference between the natural and the spiritual relations of Christ to men. As we have previously pointed out, men are naturally constituted in and through Christ. Their natural powers are all traceable to him. But sin has changed mans attitude to God. Christ came to recreate men in the divine image and establish a higher spiritual life in them. Paul discusses sin in relation to the law. He means usually the Mosaic law. His conclusion in general is that the law was meant to lead men to Christ. It operated thus: When the commandment came, sin was aroused in man and he died. The law was not in itself weak or bad. It was ineffective only through the sinfulness and weakness of the flesh. Human ability was thus shown to be unequal to the requirements of the law. A sense of sin, of corruption, and of guilt was awakened. The need of a redemption through divine power was made manifest. Thus the law became a schoolmaster or tutor (pedagogue) to lead to Christ. (Gal. 3:24.)

Paul teaches that deliverance from sin is through faith in Christ. This introduces a new spiritual energy in the soul. The old man is crucified with Christ. An ethical-mystical death and resurrection takes place. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ now emancipates from the law of sin and death. (Rom. 8: 2.) The power of sin is broken by new power that is greater. The new life in Christ is not the blossom, so to speak, on the stalk of the natural moral life of man. It is a new life with higher aims and ideals. It is not a natural development. It is a new creation. The natural was the antecedent condition of the spiritual, but new elements are introduced which exalt and transfigure the natural life. Man now transcends his old self. He finds himself anew in his new resurrection life in Christ. Paul traces human sin back to Adam. As in Adam all die, so in Christ all are made alive (Rom. 5:12-21; 1Co. 15:22.) Paul does not give us an elaborate theory as to how Adams sin is imputed to mankind. There is no clear evidence that he held the view that Adam was the official head of the race and that we sinned through him because he represented us in a covenant relation. Nor does he assert that we sinned in Adam because we were actually present in him when he sinned. This theory is based on the supposition that since the race has come out of Adam, we may properly assert that the race as a whole was in Adam. These are speculations about Pauls teaching rather than interpretations of it. Paul clearly recognizes a the principle of heredity. Adam was the natural head of the race. Our tendency to sin is derived from him. All men are affected by his act through the medium of natural propagation. This is a fact strongly emphasized by modern science. The solidarity of the race is a profoundly significant truth. We cannot escape our relations to our progenitors. But as we shall see later, in so far as we were under condemnation for the sin of Adam, Christ has removed that condemnation. He too bears a relation to the race as a whole. Solidarity and heredity are beneficent principles when acting normally.

4. The Consequences Of Sin

1. Sin Universal
It is clear from the facts which show the unity of mankind, and the moral and spiritual history of the race, as well as from the teachings of Scripture, that human sinfulness is universal. There is none righteous, no, not one (Rom. 3:10-18).

The phrase total depravity has been employed in theology to describe the sinful state of men. But it needs careful defining lest it lead astray. In brief, it means that all the parts of our nature have been affected by sin. It does not mean that men are as bad as they can be, nor that all men are equally bad. It does not mean that human nature is destitute of all good impulses in the moral sense. It means rather that human nature, as such, and in all its parts in its unregenerate state, is under the dominion of sin. The question arises here as to mans ability or inability. Man is sometimes declared to possess natural, but not moral ability in things religious. By natural ability it is meant that he possesses all human faculties and powers, including will and the power of contrary choice. He is self-determined and not compelled in his actions. He is responsible and free. He is guilty when he does wrong. He could do right if he would, because he is equipped with the faculties for moral action. On the other hand, it is asserted that man lacks moral ability because he cannot change his own nature. He cannot radically alter the bias of his will. The regenerating power of Gods Spirit is required. He must be born from above. Now as we have defined these phrases both are true. But it is doubtful whether their use is not misleading despite the definitions. In our thought processes we sometimes are driven to such distinctions for the purpose of producing orderly systems of truth. But in appealing to men generally it is easy to mislead by their use. If a man is told that he has natural ability in religious things, he is likely to overlook his dependence on Gods grace. If he is told that he lacks moral ability, he is in danger of losing his sense of responsibility. The gospel appeal always presupposes the divine initiative in salvation and the necessity for divine grace. The Scriptures do not dwell upon mans moral inability, but rather upon his unwillingness to repent and believe. Men are exhorted to turn from their evil ways and live. This does not imply that Gods grace is not required if they are to do so. It implies rather that Gods grace acts through their own free response and choice of the right. The first decisive result of grace in the heart is the free and glad response of the sinner.

2. Guilt and Penalty

Other consequences of sin are guilt and penalty. a. Guilt is he ill-desert of the sinner on account of his sin. Here we must keep in mind the personal relation involved in sin. It is transgression of objective law in some cases. It is against the attribute of divine justice. But it is more. Sin is mans personal opposition to the personal God. Guilt thus takes the form

of self-condemnation based on a sense of Gods disapproval. In conscience guilt is not a sense of transgression against abstract law or justice, but against the divine will. In Scripture also the most intense expressions of the sense of guilt take the form of consciousness of the divine anger at sin. This appears especially in the psalms and prophets. Of course there are degrees of guilt. We have, for example, sins of ignorance and sins of knowledge, sins of infirmity and sins of presumption, sins of partial and of entire opposition to Gods will. (Mat. 10:15; Luk. 12:47, 48; Joh. 19:11; Rom. 2:12; Psa. 19:12; Mat. 12:31; Mar. 3:29.) b. Penalty is the effect produced on the sinner by his sin, whether it be through the operation of natural, moral, or spiritual law, or through the direct action of God. Penalty in any of its forms is Gods reaction against sin. Men reap what they sow through the action of the laws of nature or their moral constitution in many cases of transgression. This is the divine reaction against sin as truly as Gods more direct action. But God is not limited to these laws. He remains a free Person, capable of employing various means to vindicate himself and his government against wrong-doing. All penalty against sin is based ultimately on the holy nature of God. God is immanent in the world. His laws are not apart from him; like a self-acting mechanism. God acts, his laws act, and God acts through his laws. All these statements are required. c. A question arises here as to the object of penalty. Does God punish solely as a means of vindicating his justice, or does he have in view the reformation of the sinner, or the good of society? Divergent theories are based on opposing answers to this question. There is, however, no necessary conflict between these various aspects of punishment. As we have seen, the individual man is a member of society. Heredity and solidarity are facts. God has so made the world. As man cannot act apart from his social relations, merely as an isolated unit or Atom; so it is inconceivable that Gods dealings with him could be without social effects. Moreover, if God really loves all men, we cannot think of his love as being entirely suspended when he punishes. He must desire the good of the sinful even when he visits iniquity with stripes. Again, it is an error to assume that God punishes merely to reform the sinner, or for the good of society. His righteousness is an essential quality. He punishes sin because it is sin and because his own nature necessarily reacts against it. Of course the incorrigible sinner is cut off completely from the hope of reformation, and the society of the sinner may be likewise an incorrigible society. But this does not alter the truth that God never loses his good will toward men. Men put themselves beyond the reach of his gracious appeal, and only his vindicatory righteousness can find opportunity for action. We conclude then, first, that because man is responsible and deserves punishment, God punishes him;

secondly, because man is a social being, Gods penal action on the individual necessarily affects society; and thirdly, because God is essentially righteous, he must needs punish the sinner in accordance with his own nature. d. The chef penalty of sin in the Scriptures is death, physical and spiritual. We consider first physical death. In Gen. 2:17 God declares to the man he had created that if he partook of the forbidden fruit he would surely die. In a great number of passages in the Old and New Testaments alike, the death of the body is declared to be the penalty for sin. In Rom. 5:12 death is declared to have entered the world through sin. In verse 21 Paul declares that sin reigned in death that grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. In Rom. 6:23 we read that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. There is little need to give extended references on this point. The New Testament abounds in passages which make it clear that physical death is regarded as a penalty of sin. The view is held by some that physical death is natural. It is simply the expression of a biological law. Men were created mortal in the sense that the body would die. Death is a beneficent arrangement to prevent overpopulation of the earth, and to enable the race to make progress by allowing room for new generations of men. It is held that a natural law was given a moral and penal significance when sin entered, so that death became also a penal infliction. Mans fear of death and the suffering he endures thus become penalties for sin. Scripture, however, does not seem to require this view. Enoch and Elijah were translated without tasting death. Those who are alive at Christs second coming are to be translated, according to Paul. (Cf. 1Co. 15:51; 1Th. 4:17.) At any rate, it is conceivable that God might have provided some other means of exit from the world if man had not sinned. Whatever is true as to the lower animals (and we recognize the biological law), we are not shut up to the view that physical death was the only possible ending of the earthly life of a sinless man. We may add, however, that whatever view be held as to the biological law of death as applied to all physical organisms, including that of man, the Scripture teaching that death is a penal consequence of sin remains. Physical death has become a much more terrible thing as the result of mans sin and separation from God. The sense of responsibility and of guilt has transformed it into a formidable enemy. The foreboding and dread with which men regard it has been immeasurably deepened by the reign of sin in our human spirits. Thus a natural process might have been included as a part of the penal consequences of sin by reason of the intimate relation between the two. In Gen. 3:14. a part of the curse against the serpent is seen to involve the natural mode of locomotion of the latter: Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat

all the days of thy life. This was not a new mode of locomotion imposed on the serpent, but rather a use of that which was natural as a means of emphasizing the divine anger against transgression. e. Spiritual death is the chief penalty of sin. This means separation of the soul from God. It was this spiritual death which followed the day of the first transgression. In 1Jo. 3:14 we read, He that loveth not abideth in death. In Mat. 8:22 Jesus says: Follow me; and leave the dead to bury their own dead. Here it is clear he means those who are spiritually dead are to bury the dead body. Thus Jesus as well as Paul declares that men are dead in sins. In Eph. 2: 1 Paul says his readers were once dead in trespasses and sins. Eternal death is involved in the penalty against sin. It is spiritual death when it has become permanent in the soul. Spiritual death being the absence of spiritual life, separation from God, and loss of fellowship with him and of blessedness which attends that fellowship, it follows that eternal death is the souls permanent attitude of unbelief and sin, its wilful and final separation from God.

5. Solution Of The Problem Of Sin Through Christian Experience

The consciousness of sin is one of the most real and painful of all human experiences. The bondage and helplessness of men who are held in its power are too manifest to be questioned. It is a serious defect of some forms of theology that they make no adequate provision for the fact of human bondage to sin and for the sin- and guilt-consciousness which attends it. Men are told to imitate Christ, or to strive to realize the consciousness of Christ. Or they are told to claim their privilege as the natural children of God, and to begin a new life thus. But a gospel which thus limits itself overlooks certain fundamental truths. Christs consciousness was sinless. How then can the sinner, under his sense of guilt and condemnation, imitate Christ? He knows that death reigns in him while life reigned in Christ. How can the sinner make the transition from his own consciousness of sin to the consciousness of Christ? How can he claim sonship to God in any satisfying way when the very center of his sinconsciousness is his sense of ethical unworthiness for sonship? To him it is incredible that one whose being is so under bondage to evil can claim the moral likeness to God required by sonship. No gospel which begins with any basal fact save that of mans actual unworthiness and his sense of ill-desert can meet the needs of men. In a word, the gospel of Gods grace is necessary to meet the fact and the consciousness of sin. The following elements enter into the solution of the problem of sin in Christian experience:

First, the revelation of God in Christ makes clear Gods attitude toward the sinner. He desires his salvation. Secondly, the atonement of Christ meets the rational and moral difficulty involved. Through it the sinner understands how forgiveness and justification and reconciliation are possible, despite his own sense of unworthiness. Thirdly, his own sense of sin is in the first instance deepened rather than removed. The Holy Spirit convicts him, overcomes him with a sense of sin. But as the conviction heads up in unbelief, so also it is seen that faith in Christ is the sole condition of acceptance with God and deliverance. Thus the sinners moral inability resolves itself into his unwillingness to accept Christ. Fourthly, Christ is formed in the sinner, the hope of glory, and through faith divine fellowship is restored. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ makes free from the law of sin and death. Fifthly, a new consciousness now takes the place of the sinners own guilt-consciousness. This new consciousness contains, first of all, a sense of reconciliation with God. It contains a sense of ability to make moral progress. Aspiration and desire now become victory instead of defeat. The sense of moral and spiritual loneliness now gives place to a sense of the inner presence of the Great Companion, the Comforter and Helper. Religious desire is no longer a hopeless struggle through human effort alone. It is not a soliloquy now, but a dialogue between the soul and its God. His former cry of despair was, O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of this body of death? But now in triumph he exclaims, I thank God through Jesus Christ, our Lord (Rom. 7:24, 25). We may now see the contrast between the two theological standpoints in their dealing with the consciousness of sin in man. One seeks to minimize the consciousness of sin and guilt; the other recognizes its reality and validity. One holds that Gods anger is merely subjective; the other that it is objective and real. One denies the cause; the other recognizes it and seeks to remove it. One emphasizes the appeal of Gods love apart from Christs atoning death; the other urges repentance on the ground of that death.

6. Objections To The Biblical Doctrine Of Sin

Before concluding the subject of sin, two objections need to be considered briefly. The first is an arraignment of the moral system of God. Men urge that

it is unjust to hold men responsible for the working of a system in which they seem to be victims rather than transgressors. The reasoning is as follows Heredity predisposes to sin; mans earliest consciousness is scarcely moral at all; he is born into an environment which also predisposes to sin. Thus he is, as it were, flung out into a universe where transgression is inevitable by reason of the forces which operate within and around him. The answer to this objection is not difficult where all the facts are taken into account. It runs thus: Condemnation is not for hereditary sin, but only for actual sin. Christ died for the race as a whole and removed the curse so far as condemnation for the racial sin is concerned. The solidarity of the race is a fact. But environment is not all bad. There are many redemptive influences at work all around us in Christian lands. The infant consciousness, it is true, is without moral discernment. But this negative condition is an opportunity for good as well as evil influences. There are degrees of guilt. Men are penalized according to the light against which they sin. The unity and solidarity of the race is a fact most favorable for moral character when good influences prevail. The individual is buoyed and sustained by ten thousand agencies of good. The aim of the gospel is in part to convert heredity and environment and all social forces into beneficent agencies in a kingdom of righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. We may well believe that such a system is far better than one in which men would be merely detached atoms. We can only judge Gods moral order by its prospective outcome taken along with its present organization. The end will justify the beginning. The second objection relates to the salvation of infants dying in infancy. If the principle of hereditary sin is true, how can the vast multitudes of infants who die in infancy be saved? In reply it may be said that there is comparatively little direct teaching in the Scriptures as to the salvation of infants dying in infancy. And yet there is abundant indirect evidence, as we have already seen. Again, it is entirely clear from the New Testament that Christs union with the human race made his atoning work efficacious in some measure for all mankind. As in Adam all die, so in Christ are all made alive (1Co. 15:22). This does not teach universalism, but it suggests that there is a similarity between the racial effects of the act of Adam and that of Christ. Christ died for all (2Co. 5:15); or as it is elsewhere expressed, he tasted death for every man. (Heb. 2: 9.) Men are not condemned therefore for hereditary or original sin. They are condemned only for their own sins. They are called to repentance and faith by the gospel. It is their own act of rejection which is the basis of their condemnation. Infants dying in infancy cannot repent, or believe, or

perform works of any kind, good or bad. We do not know how the grace of God operates in them. But we are fully assured that Christ provided for them, and that they are created anew in him and saved.