Gospel Prism

Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary defines sin this way:

“Sin” as a characteristic of human beings is manifested in the committing of “sins,” individual acts of rebellion against God and against expressions of his intentions for humanity…Sin is not to be identified simply with violation of the moral standards of society, though individual sins as violations of the divine intention for human interactions, are violations of human moral standards as well. Rather, sin in its basic sense is always ultimately against God Himself rather than against mankind or any human person. [Italics mine] (Allen C. Myers, ed., Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 951)

This is exactly right. Sin, when viewed on the horizontal plane, gives an incomplete picture of its effect. Sin must be viewed in light of God and this comes from a vertical perspective (God to humanity). David Wells defines sin as “an attitude toward God which is characterized by disobedience and defiance and indifference which expresses itself in thought, word and deed and produces patterns of settled disposition and contact.” (David Wells, Gordon-Conwell lectures, Lesson 12) Sin is outward aggression against God, rebellion against the Creator. It is the creature’s attempt to displace the Creator. It is the refusal to allow God to rightfully be God. Many refuse to use the word “sin” as a term to describe the base nature of humanity. Instead, words and phrases such as “mistake” or “mental lapse” have come to the forefront. Today, psychology defines sin. Responsibility is an archaic word. No one is willing to admit fault. Henry Fairlie, in his treatise on sin, writes:

There is in these essays an implicit—at times, an explicit—criticism of psychiatry, of the excuses that it finds for us, and of the shallowness of the adjustments and accommodations that it invites us to make. Its explanations are our substitutes for the idea of sin, and in nothing is this more obvious than in the mirthlessness with which it encourages us to be interested on our lesser disorders, while it frees us from the dark night of the soul in which we must wrestle with our evil. (Fairlie, 29)

Every person needs to come to know their own dark night of the soul. But today’s blame-shifting culture has taken the grotesque face of sin and shaped it into one that might not necessarily be attractive, but at least bearable. There are now excuses for that dark night and God has been psychologized out of the picture. God, the ultimate standard for morality, has been replaced and now the new point of reference is “me.” Millard Erickson sees sin as “placing something else, anything else, in the supreme place which is his. Thus choosing oneself rather than God is not wrong because it is the self that is chosen, but because something other than God is chosen.” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 58) Sin is not in relation to how we deal with others, but how we approach God. We as sinners are marked by the terror of sin and the depravity of humanity that has resulted. John Calvin comments on the apostle Paul’s view of sin: “Paul removes all doubt when he teaches that corruption subsists not in one part only, but that none of the soul remains pure or untouched by that moral disease.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), II.1.9) Charles Hodge adds:

Every man in virtue of his being a moral creature and a sinner has in his own consciousness the knowledge of sin. He knows that when he is not what he ought to be, when he does what he ought not to do, or omits what he ought to do, he is chargeable with sin. He knows that sin is not simply limitation of his nature, nor merely a subjective state of his own mind, having no character in the sight of God. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Abridged, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 284)

Sin is not relative to societal changes. The very “consciousness” of the sinner holds him or her culpable. No person can remain absolutely neutral in regard to sin. Being a moral creature compels us to feel the forever effect of sin, regardless of society’s current laws, values, or mores. Sin’s fabric is woven throughout the human existence. Denying human culpability of sin is denying the nature of sin itself. Such denial then comes to a head against the very nature of God’s justice.