[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bible Study Title: What Is Sin? The Essence and Root of All Sinning Why are we spending an entire pastors’ conference talking about sin? Let me give you just one glimpse into why I suggested to the team last summer that we focus on sin. I was reading Stephen Westerholm’s new book, Justification Reconsidered; and I was deeply moved by chapters two and three where he focuses on the relationship between Paul’s view of sin and the doctrine of justification. Westerholm is dealing with the New Perspective on Paul, a movement among New Testament Scholars in the last fifty years that goes something like this: For the last five hundred years or more, the church — Protestants in particular — has misunderstood what the Judaism of the first century believed, and therefore have misunderstood the nature of Paul’s controversy with the Jews of his day. The New Perspective would say that the basic mistake of the church has been to think of first-century Judaism as religion which taught the meriting salvation by works of the law rather than receiving it by God’s grace. Rather, the New Perspective argued, Judaism is a religion of grace. It has sacrificed atonement and forgiveness of sins flowing from God’s grace. And, the argument goes, if that’s true, then Paul could not have been arguing against Jewish legalism when he said, for example, We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:16) The New Perspective says that Paul is not criticizing people who think you can earn your salvation by law-keeping, because, they say, that’s not what first century Judaism believed. I would just confuse you if I tried to give you all the details of the New Perspective does think Paul means. You don’t need understand the fine points of the New Perspective to see what struck me as so helpful and skyrocket of the doctrine of sin in my mental horizon. Here’s all you need to see. Even the most seminal thinker in the New Perspective, E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 1977) admits that though there was a serious doctrine of grace in Judaism (how could there not be rooted as it was in the Old Testament), nevertheless “grace and merit did not seem to them to be in contradiction to each other . . . Grace and works were not considered alternative roads to salvation” (Justification Reconsidered, 30). But for Paul, reliance on God’s grace as the way of right standing with God ruled out all reliance on works as the basis of that right standing I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. (Galatians 5:3–4) One baby step of reliance on law-keeping undoes everything. If you rely on one single act of your own to be the basis of your right standing with God, you have fallen away from the God’s gracious way of declaring you righteous. In other words, the pioneer of what became the New Perspective (E.P. Sanders) shows that even though Judaism had a serious doctrine of grace, it did not give grace the same role and the same prominence that Paul did. It didn’t see reliance on grace and reliance on some good works as alternatives the way the Paul did. Why not? The answer is that Paul had a much more radical view of the sinfulness of the human heart than the mainstream of the Judaism of his day. The reason Paul did not think that that any good works — not one — could be added to grace as the foundation for our acceptance with God is that no unregenerate, unjustified human being can do one single good work (see page 32) And even the good works of the justified are imperfect and therefore can’t contribute anything to the basis of our right-standing with God. Sanders says, “the Rabbis did not have a doctrine of original sin or of the essential sinfulness of each man in the Christian sense” (33). So here’s the crucial thing: the reason Paul preached justification by grace alone, through faith alone, was not because the Jews who opposed him lacked a doctrine of grace, but because they lacked a doctrine of sin, that made the grace of God in Christ the only foundation of acceptance with God. I recall sitting in chair by the second story window in Knoxville last summer reading this devastating, glorious summary of chapter two in Westerholm’s book: [Paul’s] depiction of humanity’s condition required a much more rigorous dependence on divine grace than did Judaism’s. . . . It is no caricature of Judaism to say, with Sanders, that it lacked a doctrine of the “essential sinfulness” of humankind; no Jew would regard that claim as an insult. For Paul, on the other hand, it is precisely the “essential sinfulness” of humankind that requires a salvation based on grace alone, apart from [all] human “works.” (34) I recall pausing, as I read, and asking myself, “Do I know my condition? Do I know what he means by my essential sinfulness. Do I have a grasp of what it is about me that requires the death of the God-man for me to be saved? Do I have any suitable notion of my own evil?” This is somehow proportionate to what it cost to save me? That’s where this conference came from. And just to complete the illustration. Therefore, the old perspective on Paul, clarified and heralded in the Reformation, is not fundamentally mistaken. Yes, there is grace in Judaism — atonement, repentance, forgiveness — but no this did not rule out for them the mingling of good works with grace as the basis of a right standing with God. One thing rules that out: we are so sinful, we can’t contribute any good works to the basis of God’s acceptance of us. There are no good works anywhere in unregenerate humanity, there never have been, ever since the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. That’s how bad it is. I defend that statement shortly. And at that point last summer, I felt a weight both personally and doctrinally. Doctrinally, it became clear that, if I didn’t see the true nature and depth and power and extent of sin not only would I distort the doctrine of justification, but I would distort almost everything: what happened when Christ died for sin? What happens in conversion — new birth and faith and repentance? How do sanctification and perseverance in faith and holiness come about? What will heaven be like? Will I be safe from sinning there? And personally, I felt: Do I know the nature of my own sin? Do have a proper sense of the power and depth and evil of what I am dealing with in what Paul calls “indwelling sin” in believers? Do I have a kind of love to Christ and thankfulness for grace that corresponds to the horrors of what I was rescued from and to the price the most beautiful and innocent person paid for that rescue? What Is the Deepest Root of Sin? So what I want to do in this message is mainly answer the question biblically: What is sin? What is the essence and root of all sinning? Let’s go for deepest root immediately. I want to find out if Westerholm is right: that we humans are so sinful that apart from the grace of God in Christ we cannot do any good works at all. It’s a pressing question, because you know that you call much of what unbelievers do “good” — build hospitals, keep the speed limit, negotiate peace, heal diseases, feed the poor, pay a fair wage, and on and on. And the Bible itself says that ordinary people without reference to their faith can do good works. Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval. (Romans 13:3) So what did Westerholm mean when he said “human beings are incapable of doing [good works]” (32)? And why do I agree with him? The most penetrating and extensive treatment of sin in the Bible is Romans 1–3. And even when the word isn’t used, we know that is what Paul is dealing with because when he comes to summarize it he says, “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Romans 3:9). And he leaves no doubt about his conclusion in the next verse: “None is righteous, no, not one” (verse 10) and in verse 12, “No one does good, not even one.” So we back up then to Romans 1 in search of the essence of sin. By essence I mean: What’s at the bottom of it? What makes all sinful actions sinful? What is wrong with us at our core that gives rise to so many different kinds of evil? You might say: Why do you even think that way? Why don’t you just assume that sin is what we do? Why do you go beneath the doing to a root or a condition or a so-called depravity? The reason I go beneath our doings to a root of depravity is because Paul does. And he does so not incidentally but vigorously and forcefully. Paul sees that the essence or the root all sinning is a presence, a force, in us, part of who we are, called sin. For example, in Roman 7:8 he says, “Sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.” Now everyone agrees that covetousness is a sin. “Thou shalt not covet” (Exodus 20:17). It’s a sin in the heart. A heart-sin that might produce outward sinning like stealing. But notice, Paul says, “Sin produced covetousness.” Well, covetousness is sin. Right. And so there is a sin beneath sin that produces sin. That’s what I want to see. I want to know at the root what is wrong with me. What is at the bottom of all my evils? And all the evils in the world? Let’s go to Romans 1 and start with verse 18, “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness (adikian) suppress the truth.” Here mankind in general is described as “ungodly and unrighteous.” John says in 1 John 5:17, “All unrighteousness (adikia) is sin.” So we are talking about sin here. And Paul choses to talk about it first in terms of ungodliness and unrighteousness. And the first thing he says about it is that is that it causes people to suppress the truth. Sin repels the light of truth and runs to the darkness of falsehood. Jesus said that we are guilty sinners not because we are victims of the darkness but because we are lovers of the darkness. John 3:19, “Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light.” So sin by nature inclines and empowers us to suppress the truth. What truth particularly does sin hate? The next verse tells us. Romans 1:19. The reason we know that men suppress the truth is “Because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” Knowledge of God is repulsive to sin. So, Paul says, when this knowledge is suppressed, we have no excuse. Why? Verses 20–21: “So they are without excuse. For [because] although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks to him.” So the root of suppressing the knowledge of God is the desire to avoid glorifying and thanking God. Sin does not love to glorify God. Sin does not love to thank God. Sin hates glorifying God and thanking God. That’s what “ungodly” meant in verse 18. In “ungodliness and unrighteousness,” he said, we suppress the truth — namely, the truth that God is infinitely worthy of glory and thanks from our hearts. Sin hates that and therefore suppresses that truth. Poster Comment: The remainder of the sermon is at the link for those interested. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *Bible Study Ping* (#0)
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
PING to John Piper piece.
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
I see Piper agrees with my John 3:19 view.
And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6
If the have brains enough to develop conscience and prudence on their own.
If the have brains enough to develop conscience and prudence on their own. In the original concept of Bushido, the Japanese "way of the warrior," adherents were instructed to develop sympathy for all living beings. They had never heard of the bible or Jesus, and did not believe in God. They did believe in an afterlife on earth and Karma.
Great summary. I thought you would like the sermon given your acquaintance with Piper.
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
Interesting observation and also a strong argument for Design. Romans chapter 2 addresses this some: 12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.(NKJV) We are His Creation. God the Law giver. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|