This is an article written by a friend back when we began the Confident Christianity blog together in 2006. I have updated this article with my response as of 2020.
On any given day, you can open up the newspaper to find conflict, shootings, theft, adultery and moral decline. But, what is at the heart of moral decline? What is it that causes others to kill, cheat on their taxes and deceive people? It is sin, oops! If anyone speaks of sin or calls someone a “sinner it is almost like screaming out a profanity or obscenity at a very formal, dignified, genteel meeting, or even in church.”[1] Yet, we are all sinners resulting from the fall of Adam and Eve. So, what is sin according to the Bible and what causes someone to sin?
The nature of sin is “any evil action or evil motive that is in opposition to God”.[2] Sin is displacing God from His rightful place. Scripture gives several descriptions of sin:
¨ Missing the mark – Pro. 19:2
¨ Rebellion – Deut. 31:27
¨ Transgression – Nub. 14:41-42
¨ Iniquity – Lev. 26:40
¨ Treachery – Pro. 13:15
¨ Abomination – Deut. 22:5
“The essential nature of sin is giving the allegiance that we owe God, to someone or something else.”[3]
Knowing that sin is against God, what is it that causes a person to sin? James wrote, “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death” (James 1:13-15).
God has given us natural desires such as hunger in order that we would not starve, but when our own desires go beyond His desires then we are in gluttony and missing the mark He had intended for us. He has given us natural desires, such as:
¨ The desire to obtain things, but when our desires are at the cost of exploitation or hurting others, then the pursuit is coveting.
¨ God has given us the desire to do things, but when we boast in our own pride instead of thanking Him for the gift, then the pursuit is putting ourselves above God.
¨ God has give us the desire to enjoy marriage, but physical relations outside of marriage is pursuing adultery.
It is when we miss the mark, rebel and transgress God’s laws that we sin. Because of our sin we deserve death. However, “God demonstrated His love that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8), making restitution for our sin to all who believe. It is only when our society turns away from sin and turns to repentance to God that people will begin to walk in integrity, live with morals and love one another.
“Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers. Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the wind blows away.
Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.” Psalm 1
Deanna
My response
I think our culture today has a near immediate and negatively visceral reaction to the ideas of both “sin” and “rebelling against God.” Let me treat the later one first. Our general cultural understanding of “rebellion” seems to be that of an attitude that is desirable for the purpose of achieving an unique individual identity. Rebellion seems to equal refusal to be something other than authentic. However, I would argue that this idea is a reversal of truth.
Rebellion, as understood in the biblical sense towards God, leads towards inauthenticity and a false knowledge of the self. God, being the omniscient Creator of all things, is the one who knows individuals as they truly are. He’s the only one who can be said to hold this knowledge perfectly. He has created each person with a unique identity. Becoming authentically oneself would actually relate to having a genuine relationship with the being who knows us and guides us perfectly towards becoming who He made us to be. This guidance towards authenticity cannot fully come from imperfect beings who often serve selfish purposes and desires in guiding others. There is always a catch with humans, but God has nothing to gain from us. His love is completely and uniquely unconditional. Therefore, rebellion against God is to do harm to oneself. Deanna focused more on the right of God, as Creator, to be recognized and worshiped for who He is. While I don’t disagree, one can become a bit pharisaical if not cautious with view (such as in failing to combine this right of God with an understanding of his perfect mercy and grace). A more robust understanding of our relationship to the Creator can help us understand how much damage we do to ourselves when we rebel against the One who knows us and loves us as we truly are.
Sin, as Deanna noted, has seemingly become a vulgar utterance to many people. Conversely, I have understood “sin” to mean that which goes against the perfectly omniscient and benevolent God’s design for the universe. There’s a moral quality to how God intended for us to interact with the creation and with Him: we were meant for good and to do good. When we choose to do what is not good, what is morally reverse of what God intended, there’s a biblical word to describe those attitudes, thoughts, and actions. That word is “sin.” I have sometimes equated sin with the word “evil,” because people don’t seem to have that immediate visceral reaction to the term “evil.” Perhaps, part of the problem lies in how people in the church have presented their teachings on “sin,” mixed with their own twisted and selfish pursuits causing pain and suffering in others. Rather, a teaching on sin should show (and model) how the liberation of Christ’s salvation frees us from being slaves to doing that which is morally evil; and can help us individually flourish as human beings.
[1] Erikson, Millard J., Christian Theology, Baker Academics, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, pg. 582.
[2] Ibid
[3] Lewing, Jason, Systematic Theology, The Doctrine of Sin.
Very good rundown of “sin” here. The time you invested is appreciated.
S. Wooley,
Thank you for reading the blog, may God enlighten our eyes to our need for the Savior, Jesus Christ.
Run the race with endurance,
Deanna
I acknowledge that this sounds like a troll comment, but since I’m prefacing it with this, I assure you it’s not.
If there is a god, and then that god is a christian god, and then the god of one sect out of many christian sects, I’m pretty sure fundamentalist christianity or any backwards-looking christianity that needs to feel good about its beliefs in the face of new scientific developments or controversies is going against god.
Actually what I believed until recently is that god has nothing to do with anything and he’s having a good laugh at what we do/say. But i’m areligious now so I don’t even care that god doesn’t care.
‘ God has give us the desire to enjoy marriage, but physical relations outside of marriage is pursuing adultery.’
Matthew 5:28 ‘But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart’
The desire is already a sin, even if you then make a free will choice not to commit adultery.
Matt,
Thanks for leaving your question “is there a God?” My question to you is, why do you believe that God does not exist?
D
Steven Carr,
Good eye, someone pursuing holiness is able to pick that out. You are right sin is a heart matter. Thanks for your comment.
Press on,
Deanna
I’m afraid Matt doesn’t know that much about Christianity of any stripe.
As Rodney Stark spells out in For the Glory of God, without Christianity there wouldn’t even be science. Christianity blended a love for Aristotle and the Greeks with a sceptcism about some of their claims. This led to a willingness to test claims about the world in order to see if they were true.
The Arabs who had a similar love for Greek natural philosophy (indeed much of the writings of the Greeks was recovered from them) still never produced science as we know it.
(Also claims about the history of the world are not testable and therefore not scientific.)
Yes Steve, to entertain sin in your mind makes you as culpable as those who act on their impulses. Something to keep in mind because God is watching.
A few words by Guru Nanak:
Qazi and maulvis got together and began discussing religion.
A great fantasy has been created and no one could understood its mystery.
They asked Baba Nanak to open and search in his book whether Hindu is great or the Muslim.
Baba replied to the pilgrim hajis, that, without good deeds both will have to weep and wail.
Only by being a Christian, Hindu or a Muslim one can not get accepted in the court of the Lord.
As the colour of safflower is impermanent and is washed away in water, likewise the colours of religiosity are also temporary.
(Followers of both the religions) In their expositions, denounce Ram and Rahim.
Thus, Simply being of a religious sect will not get one closer to God . Follow the paths set by our great masters.
God is like the Peak of a mountain, God is the destination. religions are paths, these paths differ but they lead to the one destination GOD
“Without Christianity there wouldn’t have been science.”
That is unquestionably the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. What about scientists before the time of Jesus Christ? What about the scientists in other countries that practiced science thousands of years before Christianity was even a pagan religion fermenting in Europe?
It was a good article until I read that sentence and realized how close-minded the author is. Guess what? You can’t come close to proving God exists, and even assuming that he does, it would be entirely illogical for him to be a Christian God. In fact, there are thousands of religions that were founded well before Christianity was even close to being made. Are they just plain wrong? Or are you just incredibly lucky and you guys hit the nail on the head your first try, where all those others went wrong? You can’t really make an argument for the Bible being the proof for it either, because guess what? There’s no proof to who wrote that or when it was written. Or if anything in it is true, beyond the obvious historical parallels.
The only real fact you have on your side is the power of faith. And I’m not going to base my life off something that people blindly follow.
Oh by the way, if you’re going to state something as fact, use a fact, not the name of an author no one has ever heard of. It’s hardly convincing, even if it was slightly logical.
Oh, can I answer your question: “Why do you think God does not exist?”
Easy. Because there is absolutely no scientific proof that he does.
Can I disprove God’s existence? Nope. For all I know, he’s pulling all us logical types a good one and you’re totally right.
But I don’t know that.
So I’m not going to live my life under an umbrella, afraid to slip up and sin and subsequently be banished to a fiery eternal hell.
Oh that’s right, but he LOVES me. 🙂
That is unquestionably the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
Ha ha, if this is really true, then you probably haven’t heard much, yet. 🙂
Here is a bit of quick insight into the history of science and the nature of religions. A religion that views the world as full of spirits (trees have spirits, the water has a spirit, etc) is going to view those parts of the world as sacred and may not dissect them in the pursuit of science due to that very sacredness. The Christian religion views the world and everything in it as made by a Creator. Nothing in the world is to be worshipped. So people are free in Christianity to investigate and dissect the world God made. Also, some of the “fathers” of various fields of science were Christians. However, notice I am not saying “all” or a “vast majority.” Because that would exclude scientists like Pythagoras, Aristotle, Thales of Miletus, Anaximander, Hippocrates of Chios, Leucippus of Miletus, Diogenes of Apollonia, Abu Raihan Mohammad Ibn Ahmad al-Biruni, and Abu Ali al-Hussain Ibn Abdallah Ibn Sina. But the faith structure of Christianity provides an opportunity for scientific investigation of the universe and everything in it, due to the fundamental belief in God as Creator.
It was a good article until I read that sentence and realized how close-minded the author is.
Really? Did you realize that the article did not contain that sentence? That was in a comment by someone else. A fairly obvious point to miss.
You can’t come close to proving God exists, and even assuming that he does, it would be entirely illogical for him to be a Christian God. In fact, there are thousands of religions that were founded well before Christianity was even close to being made.
You have committed a non-sequitir which is a logical fallacy. Just because other religions were founded before Christianity, it does not follow that therefore Christianity is false. The earliest believers in Christ were Jewish men who considered Christ the Messiah of the Jewish faith: an ancient religion.
Christianity is the only religion in which God, himself, deals with the problem of evil in the world through a final, complete sacrifice, Jesus Christ. In the other religions, you are left to work-out your own salvation (whatever salvation means to each religion) according to the goodness of your works. If there is a Creator, and he cannot solve the problem of evil, then he fails to be the God that created everything. Or, if that God just gives everyone a free ticket into heaven, then there is no ultimate punishment for evil and he is not a Just God. So believing in a religion in which there is a God who is all-powerful, all-good, holy, etc, but cannot solve the problem of evil in the world is illogical.
You can’t really make an argument for the Bible being the proof for it either, because guess what? There’s no proof to who wrote that or when it was written. Or if anything in it is true, beyond the obvious historical parallels.
You need to spend a bit more time investigating your claim here. You say there is “no proof” when it comes to the Bible. But there is proof; just like with other ancient documents (the evidence and manuscripts don’t just disappear because someone says they don’t exist). So if I apply your apparent methodology for proof of the authorship and content of the Bible out to all other ancient documents, I would lose nearly ALL of the content and authorship of ancient history. The Bible has at least the amount of proof of other ancient documents, but actually much more for its authorship and textual reliability. At a recent debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace (March 2008, New Orleans), an audience member asked Bart Ehrman (leading skeptic on the reliability of the New Testament documents) that if he applied his methodology of criticism of the trustworthiness of the New Testament to the writings of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would he consider those as unknowable as well? Ehrman answered that, yes, those authors and their writings were unknowable as well. Hyper-skepticism is not always the best option in dealing with historical documents. It is good to be skeptical, but you must also understand the field you are studying and what is acceptable evidence in that area.
Oh by the way, if you’re going to state something as fact, use a fact, not the name of an author no one has ever heard of.
If you haven’t heard of the author, perhaps it would be a better idea to check the author out, rather than brush the author aside. Facts are not simply floating around in space and time until they land on a piece of paper…people have investigated data and write down “facts.” That entails authorship.
Because there is absolutely no scientific proof that he does.
Have you investigated this claim thoroughly as well?
So I’m not going to live my life under an umbrella, afraid to slip up and sin and subsequently be banished to a fiery eternal hell. Oh that’s right, but he LOVES me. 🙂
Your view of the Christian God is ill-informed, un-investigated, and stereotypical. I apologize if that sounds extremely harsh, but you need to be told that by someone. If I were to offer up a view of a scientific theory as superficial as your view of the Christian God, I would be scathingly chastised; and rightfully so!
Thank you,
MJ
"You are right sin is a heart matter."
So, how does one overcome it? A rose is a rose, whether to heart or head. (Note: I am but starting on this path and much confuses me.)
Hi
Here is well addressed the meaning of sin, but I would like to know the meaning of EVIL, since sin is based on that idea.
Is evil a transgression of a law? What if there are no laws?
Is it part of 'human nature'?
Why would a almighty God would concern about it (to the point of sending the transgressor to hell)?
Peter
Hi, I hope you have a good day. Thank you for inspiring us. You bring joy to our face.
kieth
http://www.n8fan.net