The fact of sin : viewed historically and doctrinally

Foreword

The subject of this book is one of the most important in theological thought. “The fact of sin” is interwoven in every discussion involving the doctrine of the salvation of men. It lies at the basis of both the Old and the New Testament teaching, and any system of Christian thought which excludes it from consideration is, to that extent at least, defective. Sin and redemption are the two great discussions around which the formulated thought of the centuries in relation to Christianity has gathered. It is ineradically interwoven in the Holy Scriptures, and any interpretation which excludes this great fact can not be accepted by the Christian theologian. The Old Testament abounds not only in the statement but in the illustration of sin. The words “sin” and “sinners” are frequent in the Scriptures.

Foreword

There is no one of the sacred writers who has given sin more elaborate treatment than the Apostle Panl. Two remarkable passages at once attest this. One is Romans v, 12: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed npon all men, for that all have sinned.’ ’ Again (1 Timothy i, 15) the apostle says, “It is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.’ ’ The statement of men as sinners is a distinct conception of the divine revelation. Error, wrong, disharmony with one’s conditions, legal disobedience, a condition which is to be righted in some way, is found in a greater or less degree in all religious thought. But the conception of sin as a violation of God’s law, as antagonism to God’s holiness, as a condition requiring penalty from which there must be deliverance by divine power, is peculiar to Christian theology.

The obscuration of sin in these times is one of our most dangerous tendencies. Without this sense there is little room or need for

Foreword repentance and, consequently, for seeking deliverance. It has ceased to be talked about and is rarely preached about. Sin lies in the nature of man and also in the acts of man. Men commit sins because men are sinners. As a nature it is a tendency, as an act it is a transgression. As a nature it is a depravity, and as an act it is guilt. Both, according to the Cbistian conception, need the divine atonement and divine rescue.

This book is one that should command attention both because of its subject and because of its treatment. The author has mastered the literature on the subject and has entered into its deep meaning and recognized the vital relation of the fact of sin to the divine plan of salvation. The unbiblical conceptions of the origin of sin are clearly stated and the Biblical position defended. Poetry, Science, Philosophy, and the Scriptures are freely drawn upon for illustration. Over against the fact of sin the author places the fact of holiness and unfolds the transition of the human soul from sin to holiness through the faith of Jesus Christ.

Foreword

To many minds it will be a new revelation of the exceeding sinfulness of sin and an inspiration to turn to God for deliverance. The clearness of style, thoroughness of discussion, and the importance of the subject commend this book as worthy of attention and study on the part both of the Christian layman and the Christian minister. We cordially commend it as a timely and valuable contribution to an essential doctrine of the Holy Scriptures too much neglected in our time. In its careful study the reader will find intellectual illumination and spiritual uplifting.

Peesident HENRV A. BUTTZ, D. D., LL. D.

Drew Theological Seminary ,

Madison, N. J.

I

“The right knowledge of sin is of supreme importance.”

— Calvin.

“Every-day experience teaches us that the right knowledge of sin is as rare as it is difficult.”

— Van Oosterzee.

“ All the religions of the world recognize the sinfulness of man. Even the Hindus, whose teachers tell us that there is no sin, teach the doctrine of transmigration, or that the result of wrong-doing in this world is condemnation to endless cycles of suffering in lower forms of existence.”

— Amory H. Bradford.

The purpose of the following pages is twofold: first, we desire to present a short review of the Fact of Sin as it has existed in the thought of the leading men and systems of the centuries, and, secondly, that we may recover to the fact the emphasis which is demanded in our message to the modern mind. We can not fail to know that the need of the hour is a vivid conception of the potency and reality of sin. Gladstone voiced the true expression of every Christian heart when he said that —

“The great want in modern life is a deep sense of sin; it is wanting in our sermons, wanting everywhere. Sin can neither be denied nor accounted unreal. There is nothing which at the present time needs more to be insisted on in theology and in gospel preaching than the objectivity and reality of guilt. It is not a subjective illusion, which we should be taught to disregard in view of God’s in- 13 finite love; it is as real as life or death, a gigantic problem for God and man . 9 ’

We are living in that which has been termed an age of donbt. It is an era of materialism and theological unrest. Socialism is invading the common mind. Philanthropy has sought to usurp the place of Christianity, but the displacement is only apparent. That which is inherently dependent can not long exist independently. Christianity is the eternal source of philanthropy and charity. Love of humanity is born of love to God. Sin is still persistently present and man needs redemption. There can be no relief in disregard or denial. The disease must be dealt with from within as well as from without.

There must be a regeneration of the nation as well as of the individual before we shall realize the fulfillment of the prophetic prayer which foretold the hour when the perfect will of a perfect reigning One should be done on earth as in heaven.

The fact of sin has to do with the whole of life — with what we are as well as what we do. The inner condition is causal to the outward action. In Christian thought the fact of sin and the fact of Christ are intimately related. There is a sense in which it may be said that the entrance of sin was causal to the Incarnation of the Christ. It is divinely true that in a moral world governed by a personal Providence, the needs arising from the grant of human sovereignty are certain to be met by the wisdom and love of the Infinite Father. The same love that expressed itself in the creation of man as a free moral agent, would not fail to make the necessary sacrifice to redeem the individual, when through an act of disobedience he had betrayed the trust of moral freedom. But we must not forget that love has its limitations and that divine holiness must be just.

The fact of sin determines not only our conception of man but also of God. A wrong idea of the nature of evil always produces a false notion of both humanity and Deity. The various systems of philosophy and theology have been grouped about two widely divergent views of sin — the one has been wholly Christian, while the other has been largely naturalistic. The one is the child of divine revelation, while the other is purely of human origin. The former has always proved effectual in individual emancipation, while the latter has tended to lessen the sense of guilt and the consequent necessity of seeking regeneration and purification. If we are to he successful in our advance toward a higher plane of social, political, and spiritual living, we must not fail to give a large place to the fact of sin.

We find several witnesses to the reality of sin aside from that of our own personal consciousness. They vary in their understanding and grasp of the subject, but they are all of value in our approach toward a more perfect conception of the fact. The first evidence is that which we gain from the inspired genius of the poet, and, though not of the highest value, it is still of entrancing interest to every lover of literature. Poetry preceded prose in the formation of literature. Philosophy, like poetry, is often unable to appreciate the full meaning of that which the New Testament portrays in the inspired word of spiritual wisdom. The same may be said of the ethnic faiths, since they have been deprived of the higher revelation of Scripture. But in all these systems which form a sort of preliminary preparation to the complete Christian conception of sin, we have a partially revealed moral code, which is prophetic of that which came in the fullness of time through Him whose coming made sin exceedingly sinful.

God selected one nation through which He presented a concrete example of His plans and purposes, and divinely chosen men spoke in divers manners as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; yet all nations and people have been imperfectly seeking to reveal an inner ideal which • had been divinely implanted and may be said to have been primal.

The harmony of the existence of evil and the theistic conception of the world has ever been the enigma of Science. The philosopher has attempted to ratify reason, and the Christian has sought to satisfy conscience. That sin exists is no longer a debatable question, but its right to exist has always been seriously questioned. The atheist denies it by shutting out God. The philosopher annuls it by making it a necessity. The poet bemoans its “frightful mien,” yet refers it to God. The evolutionist locates it in matter, making it a mere infirmity.

Man’s estimate of sin determines to a large degree man’s conception of God. National history is little more than a concrete portrayal of man in relation to good and evil, showing how the divine purpose is being wrought out under human freedom and Providence. The moral and spiritual advancement of mankind has been attained, not by any positive aid of the forces of sin, but rather in spite of all its opposition.

The great need of the hour is a vision of sin in all its deep and direful relations to the individual and to the Infinite. When the sense of sin waned and weakened, and indulgences were being sold in the street with a priestly promise of absolution for a meager penance, then licentiousness became common and virtue existed only in name. The Middle Age was dark and degraded because the Bible had been taken from the people, conscience had been deprived of a counselor, and sin had ceased to be considered sinful. The Reformation was a return to spiritual living, which brought a changed attitude of men toward evil. The people journeyed again toward Sinai and Calvary. Conscience found a Liberator, truth a Defender, and justice a judgment seat. Sin was revealed, and the sinful sought a Savior.

There is no apology to offer for those who disclaim any desire to know what sin is, and who claim that they are anxious only to get rid of it. We agree that the important question is as to remedy, and we hold that Christianity alone is remedial. But to explain is not to defend or to make void. Research into its nature and location is essential to the proper application of the remedy. The efficiency of the pulpit is here determined. The minister’s power in convicting and converting men is largely dependent on his portrayal of sin. As Moody said, “We need to bear down hard on sin.” Wesley, Whitefield, and Spurgeon were great emancipators because they were great preachers of the terrible bondage of evil.

The declining sense of sin has brought peril to evangelism. Our altars are not crowded with publicans and sinners crying out for mercy. Culture of intellect is taking the place of contrition of heart. The Church has gained strength financially and intellectually, but it too often lacks the apostolic authority, which is able to say unto men, “ Arise.” These conditions are due to the materialistic as well as the ultra-idealistic tendencies of the age. Modern thought has influenced our former conception of the origin and nature of sin. Christian Science and Theosophy, which are merely remnants of Pagan Philosophy, have sought to deny everything that looks like sin. They are not only false in their logic, hut deceptive in origin and principle, and utterly unworthy the serious consideration of Christian scholarship. Pantheism would have us believe that all is good because all is God. False optimism, often blind to the individnal element in security and perpetuity, exclaims:

“ God is in His heaven,

All ’s right with the world.”

We seem to have lost that consciousness of sin and guilt that voices itself in such words as —

“0, what form of prayer

Can serve my turn? Forgive me my foul murder!

That can not be ; since I am still possessed

Of those effects for which I did the murder.”

In the above words we have prayer for mercy checked by an inner sense of horrid guilt. No “gilded hand” is able to shove by justice or excuse the awful deed.

Sin is no superficial thing that can be set aside with a sneer. It is the deep and deadly poison of eternal death. The present situation may be dark, but a better day is dawning in the Christian world. The ‘ 4 gay skepticism” of France and the destructive criticism of Germany are facing the sane forces of a healthy reaction. In the light of the Sun of Righteousness we are to behold the blackness of sin. Dress-parade volunteers are being made to realize that the crimson tint of self-sacrifice is the true badge of discipleship.

In this study we hope to present the most important theories and by a careful review of the evidences reach some tenable position. We shall aim to present sin in its true nature. When reference is made to natural evil and the ethics and philosophy of non-Christian religions, it will be merely as an aid to our better understanding of moral evil. Our final authority will not be conscience, but revelation and conscience. An important place will be given to the consideration of the origin of sin and its mode of transmission, but our chief contention will be in presenting the fact of sin as an existent reality.

The introductory remarks which have been made preparatory to the presentation of this treatise would be incomplete without the acknowledgment of my indebtedness to Dr. Olin A. Curtis, who was for three years my honored professor of Systematic Theology, to Prof. F. F. Ellinwood, of New York University, for two years of study in Comparative Religion, and to Principal A. M.

Fairbairn, of Mansfield College, Oxford, England, whose lectures and personal suggestions I have been privileged to receive. Under their instructions my interest in theology has received a new impetus and my preaching has gained a new power. It was from their teaching and lectures that I first realized the important place that the fact of sin must have in relation to all Christian doctrine.

The succeeding chapters are not intended to present a dogmatic philosophy of moral evil, but to be a plain and practical presentation of an important subject which we consider to be vitally related to the every-day life and experience of the layman as well as the theologian. We have no theory to defend and no special system of doctrine with which we are anxious to harmonize our discussion. The Bible, which we consider the only real source of what we are pleased to term the Christian doctrine of sin, will always be taken as the final standard of judgment in matters of construction and criticism. The message of the following chapters is sent forth with the prayer that it may prove as helpful to the reader as it has been to the writer in furnishing a solution of the problem of sin which may prove satisfactory to the intellect when supplemented by the completing faith of the heart and intellect.

II

“ And ah for a man to arise in me,

That the man I am may cease to be."

— Tennyson.

“ Two souls are ever striving in my breast, Each from the other longing to be free."

— Goethe.

“ Law can discover sin, but not remove Save by those shadowy expiations weak."

— Milton.

“ Daily with souls that cringe and plot, We Sinais climb and know it not."

Lowell.

POETRY

Poets are not theologians. They claim no special dogma and they trust no treasured traditions. It may be said that, though they have a small creed, they often possess a large Christ. They may ignore botany, but they love flowers. They may be indifferent to astronomy, but they are ardent admirers of “the firmament which showeth His handiwork. ’ ’

Poets live on vision, and where there is no vision poetry perishes. Faith, hope, and love constitute the vital life of poetry no less than of religion. These, when linked to a sincere consecration of truth and virtue, yield rich results in the interpretation of the deeper problems of life. Dr. Dawson claims that ‘ ‘ the power of spiritual apprehension is one of the surest signs whereby we know a great poet. It is the function of the great poet to be a seer and interpreter. He sees 27 farther, deeper, and higher than ordinary men, and interprets for the common man what he dimly feels hut does not fully apprehend. It is quite true that the message of the poet and the result of his spiritual insight may not shape with our preconceived notions and theories ; but where the spiritual insight is sure and real the true poet never fails to quicken insight in his reader. ’ ’ This statement of an eminent literary critic ought to encourage our search for aid among the leading poets of all ages.

The attitude of mind and heart which characterized those who journeyed to Emmaus was quite in accord with that of our modern Christian poets. Coleridge was a mystic, Byron a pessimist, while Browning was an optimist. They were all artists, but not all wore philosophers. Like prophets, our poets were born, not made. God sends many of his best messages to be translated for us by poetic genius.

In our study of sin we may glean many inspired thoughts from the writings of the leading poets. Beginning with Homer, we have a crude and often unconscious theology. He was very pessimistic in his idea of man, which he once stated thus : 6 ‘ There is nothing more wretched than man.” This could not hut interfere with his notion of evil. His conception of the Deity was a sort of “combination of all natural tendencies and forces, both good and evil.” Sin was little more than the following out of evil impulses inherent in nature. Divinity became the responsible creator and man the irresponsible creature. Sin found its source in the gods themselves, and the individual could not consistently be called a sinner. Evil was merely the stumbling of an individual born blind, who could not be accounted either a saint or a sinner, since he was unmoral or irresponsible for his action. Zeus was a mysterious merging of God and Satan. Guilt was unknown and repentance became impossible. The best interpretation we can place upon his teaching would be to make evil a sort of combined failure on the part of the gods and men. But, however inconsistent it may appear, he still held that “sin deserved death and punishment was a debt due to the gods. ’ * The other great poets of Greece — Sophocles, Euripides, and .ZEschylus — had a remarkable insight into the existence of guilt as a result of sin — the moral necessity of punishing guilt ; but their ideas were vitiated by a gross fatalism.

Dante and Milton both made sin the central fact of their literary inspiration and imagination. Without a vivid conception of sin Dante could never have written “The Inferno,” nor could Milton have produced a “Paradise Lost.” Though our Italian genius chose to use the most weird and ghastly phrases, still we can not fail to be impressed by his portrayal of the final results of sin. The underlying principles of his great drama are largely correct. That the wages of sin are all that we can crowd into that strongest of all words “death,” we must readily admit, but that it is possible for us to classify sins into sharply defined groups and to mete out varied degrees of punishment to different individuals, is wholly speculative. That certain kinds of sins have their seat more particularly in the emotions or the aesthetic nature, and others may be more clearly traced to the volitional powers, is easily recognized, bnt to limit sin to any one of these divisions of the senses is impossible. Sin has to do with the whole of personality. We find Dante is in harmony with New Testament teaching in the emphasis he places upon sin as a self-perversion of the will and a criminal betrayal of the trust of human sovereignty. He is very emphatic in his thought of responsibility and guilt. To him sin was not “misfortune, disease, or natural necessity, but rebellion, crime, and self-destruction.” The punishment of the sinful was just as essential to his theodicy as the reward of the righteous.

Dante was the “morning star of the Renaissance, and to him was entrusted the vision — that the new culture without the old faith would be the mind’s Inferno.” Ruskin spoke of him as “the great prophetic exponent of the heart of the Middle Ages. ’ ’ Reason and revelation were his two unfailing guides. He may be taken as the fulfillment of Tennyson ’s ideal of a poet :

“ He saw through life and death, through good and ill,

He saw through his own soul,

The marvel of the everlasting will,

An open scroll before him lay.”

We find in the Divine Comedy the most thorough and careful analysis of all the varied forms of sin that has ever been written. The Purgatorio comprises nine circles, and each one is characterized by some one dominant sin. That these gradations of penalty are not in accord with Scripture need not concern us here, since we are only seeking to interpret the vision as an aid to the study of evil. The real theme as expressed in his own words is, 4 ‘ Man, as rendered liable by ill-desert in the exercise of his free will to punishing justice . 9 9 He teaches that there is one dominant sin which destroys us, and it may be taken as the basis for classification. While the sinner may for a time determine the degree of his indulgence, he does not possess the power to limit his action to one form of evil.

The first six circles are given up to those who have in a passive sense yielded themselves to carnal sins. Their offense has been directed against themselves rather than others, and is made to inclnde neglect of the sacraments, Inst, gluttony, avarice, discontent, and heresy. The last would more properly be placed by itself as belonging to the intellect. The other three are violence, fraudulent violence, and treachery; a careful distinction being made between sin committed through sudden impulse or passion and that which is the result of deliberate action. Those of the latter sort, owing to their greater guilt, are consigned to the lowest circle of hell.

Over the gates through which they pass into the Inferno are inscribed the following words :

“ Reared by power Divine,

Supremest wisdom, and Eternal Love,

All hope abandon ye who enter here.”

The Inferno is the eternal abiding place of the lost. The “grievous suffering and lamentation’ ’ is attributed to “the hopeless- 3 ness of death, their blind existence, and their nnmemorable former life, which makes them envy every other lot. ” In the first circle we behold “the bright school of the loftiest poets.’ * These of sin are blameless, but belong to the unbaptized family of great poets and philosophers, and they are destined to go on “desiring without hope.” Hell is to them not so much a place of suffering as of loss and endless deprivation. The second circle is the abode of the first of actual sinners and the beginning of torment. They are “scourged in the blackness of the hurricane. 9 9

“ The stormy blast of hell With restless fury drives the spirits on,

These in whom lust has swayed their reason “blaspheme against the good Power in heaven . 9 9 The next in order we find the gluttonous. They are tortured by being forced to lie in the mire under the ceaseless storm of hail, snow, and discolored water. For the sin

E’en as thou seest, I with fatigue am worn.”

The same class of souls in Purgatory suffer pangs of hunger in sight of trees laden with fruit. The avaricious, or those who distorted in mind made no use of their money, are punished in a manner indicative of their earthy existence. They who on earth had burdened others to satisfy their selfish greed are now in endless strife and violence made to roll backward and forward heavy weights by the main force of their breasts. The strife is suggestive of their commercial occupation, while the enslaving service is the price of their earthly ease and luxury. As a further mark of his disapproval of this sin, he has effaced all traces of recognition.

The souls of those whom anger overcame are plunged in a filthy pool of bubbling water where in their maddening rage they strangle and tear one another in pieces. “A dolorous strain they gurgle in their throats, but all utterance is denied.’ ’ The heretics are consigned to the city of Dis, where they are to suffer —

“ Eternal fire,

That inward burns, shews them with ruddy flame illumed,”

The eighth circle is known as the “Evil Budget.’ ’ As though having exhausted the divisions, he causes this one to include ten pits, into which he dashes as many varieties of fraudulent sinners. In one of the most dismal gulfs he locates the soul of Pope Nicholas. Again he recognizes another, and exclaims :

‘ O, Constantine ! of what a world of evil Was that dowry the mother, which first converted The pastor of the Church into a rich man ! ”

The last circle is described as a lake of ice where criminal traitors are made to suffer all the bitter pangs of cold. In the lowest pit of hell he finds the treacherous friar Alberigo and Judas Iscariot.

The Inferno was the poet’s attempt to present such a vivid conception of sin as to awaken sleepy consciences and impel men to repentance. The portrayal is highly imaginative and realistic. This feature of his style, however, was due not only to the personal pressure of the burden he was bearing, but also to the conviction that the times demanded radical methods. He was the divine messenger to the spiritual darkness and moral deadness of the age. It was a fourteenth century message, and therefore not amenable to present-day comparison and criticism.

Sin means separation from God in Dante ’s comedy, in divine revelation, and in human experience. We may also approve the central theme, which asserts that so long as sin exists hell must be its inevitable destiny. The degrees of personal demerit attendant upon different sinful deeds, quite logically led Dante to conclude that the sufferings of the impenitent would likewise vary. The standard of judgment used was not always in accord with the Christian conception of sin. Sin is too often measured by the harm done to individuals, rather than its criminality in the sight of a Holy God. There is a failure in not giving “motive” as rightful a place in the characterization of sin as he gives to passion and impulse. Vice, which is largely a physical evil, should be considered less culpable than blasphemy, which is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

The deepest content in the Christian doctrine of sin is not in its destructive sway over men and nations, but is found in the attitude of the individual toward divine law. We find ourselves in constant danger of over-emphasizing the human results of sin and undervaluing the divine element in the composition of guilt. The chief value of our study will be found in the fact that, to gain any adequate conception of sin, we must see it not only in the present, but in its future aspects. To accomplish this, Dante uses three methods of revealing the true nature of sin: first, “by bringing in the repulsive demons that preside over the circles; in the second place, it is shown in the environment which the sinner endures, and, thirdly, by the inner condition and torment of the sinner himself. ’ ’

Milton was weak in his delineation of Satan, while Dante has given the best presentation of the sinfulness of sin to be found in all literature.

Milton said, “Myself am hell,” but Dante taught that the sinner made his own hell out of his environment. Sin made even the air

“ black with its own folly, and hot with its own passion.” The sin of earth is linked to the suffering of hell, so that the “ tears and blood of earth flow through the Inferno, forming the four rivers in which the evildoers are punished. ’ ’ Sin carries with it its own penalty and the individual is self-condemned.