The theology of inherited sin nature is dominant in all forms of evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Outside of radical Arminianism, I know of no major group that rejects sin nature. Instead, opponents of inherited sin nature can be found scattered among a variety of theological traditions. This creates a major problem: sin nature is taught as dogma in nearly all churches and dissenting arguments are rarely heard. I have often heard it said that sin nature is an essential doctrine; that you can't understand salvation unless you accept sin nature, but I've never heard an explanation for why this is the case other than, "some theologian said so". If this doctrine is so essential, we should be sure that it is in fact Biblical.
The typical view of inherited sin nature is that every person has some basic sort of evil at the core of their being; sin is simply part of being human. Others view sin nature as a strong compulsion to sin. Either way, sin nature is an inevitable and inseparable part of mankind. Why is this a considered an essential doctrine? It has nothing to do with the gospel, repentance, faith, or the new birth. Actually, it would present the ultimate excuse for guilty sinners. Therefore, I argue that inherited sin nature is a dangerous doctrine. In short, if sin is some inescapable part of my nature, then it's not really my fault if I sin, right? In reality, the guilty sinner doesn't need to repent of Adam's sin (besides, how could they?), they need to repent of their own specific willful sins. The idea of sin nature distracts from this.
There is another theological problem with inherited sin nature that is even worse. If sin nature existed, it would certainly play a major role in how humans are tempted. Yet, Jesus was "In all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). If we have a sin nature, this passage wouldn't be true unless Jesus did also. But to claim that Jesus had a sin nature is a MAJOR theological problem. If you believe in inherited sin nature, you have to reconcile this issue. I've yet to hear anyone from the sin nature side even attempt to tackle this problem.
I've shown some huge theological contradictions with sin nature, but I also want to examine the Bible passages that supposedly support it before I propose an alternate viewpoint. Psalm 51:5 is commonly cited, but examine what David actually says: "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." How was he shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin? Did his mother commit adultery? Was he referring to other sin surrounding his conception? Or was he poetically referring to the world he was being conceived into? (this is a poem after all) It's hard to be 100% sure, but there's certainly nothing here about inheriting the sin of his mother, his father, Adam, or anyone else.
Psalm 58:3 is also commonly quoted in support of inherited sin nature. It's obvious that this passage is just poetic, because infants in the womb are quite incapable of telling lies. It's also claimed that Romans 5:12 teaches that Adam's sin spread to all men. Look again. It says death is what spread to all men, not sin. In fact, it says death spread to all men because all have sinned (Men die for their own sin, not Adam's). Finally, Romans 7:25 only teaches sin nature if you're cherry picking a very bad translation (NIV, NLT) to support your position.
After dealing with those few verses, the argument for sin nature completely breaks down. Sin nature proponents resort to citing verses that state things to the effect of "all have sinned". Yup, I agree. However, this argument is not about if everyone sins, but rather how that sin got there. Is it the result of their own bad choices, or were they born with it? So, the hundreds of verses that discuss the sinfulness of humanity are not relevant to the argument for inherited sin nature. But if we don't have a sin nature, how do we explain these verses? Are we all just neutral? I think not. For example, Paul talks about being a slave to sin in his unsaved state (Rom. 7). This is far from neutral, but how did he get that way?
At this point, I want to present an alternate view. Up to this point I've been using the term "inherited sin nature", because now I'm going to introduce a viewpoint that could be called "acquired sin nature". The concept is hardly worth such a title though. It's very simple: sin is addictive. As we sin throughout our lives and the addiction builds, it quickly starts to look like what some might call a "sin nature". The addiction to sin produces a greater and greater proclivity to sin.
So if humans still have a proclivity to sin, what's the difference? If you inherited a sin nature from Adam, you couldn't help it. Any sin you would commit is, at least partially, not your fault. But your proclivity to sin came about through your own actions, you can't blame anyone but yourself. Imagine a meth addict who has been strung out for a year. Their compulsion to do meth is so strong that it's nearly impossible for them to stop. They might argue they barely have control over their actions, that they are a slave to their addiction. Yet, they still hold 100% of the blame, because they made the choices that led to their addiction.
Similarly, fornicators find it hard to give up their lifestyle. Homosexuals convince themselves that their sin is just part of who they are. Ever notice that sin is a downward spiral? It's the addiction at work. Fornicators need more partners and wilder acts. Liars tell bigger and bolder lies. Criminals rarely keep doing the same thing, they have to graduate to more serious crimes to keep getting the rush. This is what sin does: it blinds us, hardens our heart, and pushes us farther away from God.
Thankfully, this addiction is broken when you repent, trust Christ, and are born again. That's the difference between the saved and the lost. While Christians might fall into sin at times, even back into the same ones as before, there is no addiction. The downward spiral is replaced with new desires and an upward climb. I hope you've experienced that freedom from sin. If not, repent now!
In conclusion, I've shown that there is no Biblical support for the idea of inherited sin nature. I've also pointed out several major theological contradictions that would occur if sin nature were true. In light of these facts, the case against inherited sin nature is a slam dunk. I've also explained that the Biblical statements showing our proclivity to sin are easily understood when we consider the addictive nature of sin. This viewpoint leaves no unresolved theological issues, and gives guilty sinners no excuse for their behavior.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
The Conservative's Betrayal of Christianity and the Case for Libertarianism
It finally happened, I'm interested enough in politics to write on the topic. Well, sort of. I'm not going to discuss a bunch of specific policy positions or candidates, but instead would like to examine the Christian theological basis for political thought. Even though there's an expected cultural identity for Christians to be a part of the 'religious right', I'm going to argue that this is a betrayal of core Christian values, and that libertarianism is the political philosophy that fits best with Christianity.
So, I begin with a fundamentally important assertion: all law is backed by violence. If you don't believe me, go pick a law and break it. Even if it's a minor offense punished by a fine, you will eventually encounter force if you refuse to pay. So let's be really clear about this. When you make a law about something, you're saying "I think we should use violence to enforce this".
Now, although the Bible doesn't really say anything about the particulars of government (no, the US is not Israel), it sure does set some rules when it comes to violence. In fact, peace is one of the fruits of the Spirit. To commit an act of violence against a non-aggressor is decidedly anti-Christian behavior. Our m.o. should be "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peacably with all men." (Rom. 12:18).
There are plenty of behaviors that justify a forceful response. Murderers should be stopped and punished. Drunk drivers should be forcibly removed from the road to keep the public safe. What about moral issues? Christians generally do a good job at asking the most basic question, "Is this behavior right?", but when it comes to politics there's a second question that rarely gets asked, "Should we use violence to enforce/discourage this behavior?"
Let me emphasize that this is not an issue of moral relativism. I do believe in absolute truth and morality, but I also recognize that it's not Biblical to try to force someone into Christian behavior. How do we see Jesus and the apostles respond to immorality in the culture? They preach the gospel, sharply rebuke sin, and call people to repentance. Jesus spent a lot of time calling out religious hypocrisy, rebuking those who were only outwardly religious, but dirty on the inside (Matt. 23:25-28). So why should we use the government to force others into hypocrisy? Jesus tells us instead to clean the inside first (v.26).
We can also learn from history to see the disaster that comes when governments try to regulate morality. I won't even discuss the Catholic church because that's too easy. Even after the reformation, many of the reformers went on to establish their own state churches which bred corruption and often persecuted anabaptist Christians. This even carried over into the early American colonies and states, where taxes were used to fund the state church and refusal to attend church was a punishable offense. Calvin's Geneva is possibly the best example of this corruption. Personal morality was heavily regulated by the state, but in practice, the people of Geneva remained corrupt and only added hypocrisy to their sins. T.H. Dyer quotes Gallife, a Genevese writer, who gave the following account:
To those who imagine Calvin did nothing but good, I could produce our registers, covered with records of illegitimate children, which were exposed in all parts of the town and country; hideous trials for obscenity...I could instance multitudes of forced marriages, in which the delinquents were conducted from the prison to the church; mothers who abandoned their children to the hospital, whilst they themselves lived in abundance with a second husband; bundles of lawsuits between brothers; heaps of secret negotiations; men and women burned for witchcraft; sentences of death, in frightful numbers; and all these things among the generation nourished by the mystic manna of Calvin. (The Life of Calvin, p.153)
These accounts of the personal morality at Geneva are not uncommon. I wouldn't argue that the government caused this immorality, but it certainly did little to nothing to stop it, despite the strict intervention. If Geneva was the greatest example of a society attempting to legislate morality, it was an abysmal failure. The conclusion is obvious: you can not use government to force people into moral behavior, they must be changed from the inside out.
Let's use the gay rights issue as a recent example. Now, I don't believe in gay marriage, because marriage is first and foremost a Christian religious institution, which is defined by the Bible, not governments. With that said, should we deny homosexuals the equal protection of their civil liberties? Yes, homosexuality is sin, but since when is it our responsibility to stop others from sinning through the use of force? Do you really think that making their lives harder will stop them from sinning? Also, do we really want the government to have the ability to forcibly invade our lives for almost any reason? If you want our government to have that kind of power, what are you going to do in ten years when someone is elected who thinks that Christians are undesirables?
I also want to touch on the issue of war, which is another area where libertarians take a different position than typical conservatives. I don't want to get into a complete theology of war, but we should all be able to agree that aggressive war is completely anti-Christian and that every effort should be made to prevent civilian casualties if we do find ourselves in a war. Do we not believe in the sanctity of life? Then how can a Christian vote for a politician who is recklessly aggressive overseas? Or one who is willing to kill civilians through carpet bombing? Our overseas aggression has been justified as a 'war on terror', but I think we all need to be reminded that it has been almost 15 years since the US has been attacked and we're now mostly fighting in countries that had nothing to do it. How does this mesh with Christian principles?
So other than politics, what does this matter? First, if we're going to give account for every idle word, I think it's obvious that our voting record will be a part of that. I've given sufficient reasons to not vote republican, and there are even more reasons to not vote democrat. Some refuse to vote third party because they 'have no chance of winning', but do you really want to have to explain to the Lord why you supported someone who promoted violence? I'd rather use my vote as a message, and give it to the right person with a clean conscience. Second, I've seen several instances where the policies of the 'religious right' hinder the spread of the gospel. Ever try to share the gospel with a gay person? When I do, I usually have to spend the first few minutes breaking down walls that they have put up against Christians...sometimes it doesn't work. If they were offended by the gospel or our stance for righteousness, that would be fine, but many are offended by government interference in their lives.
In conclusion, typical conservative policies stand in contrast to Biblical principles. Libertarianism stands as the best alternative. Christians must abandon their undeserved loyalty to the republican party. We should be the first to stand against any policy of unnecessary violence, both domestic and foreign. Our efforts should be focused on converting sinners through preaching the gospel, not moderating their behavior through politics. Finally, we should conduct ourselves in a way that honors the Savior regardless of whether we can affect political change or not.
So, I begin with a fundamentally important assertion: all law is backed by violence. If you don't believe me, go pick a law and break it. Even if it's a minor offense punished by a fine, you will eventually encounter force if you refuse to pay. So let's be really clear about this. When you make a law about something, you're saying "I think we should use violence to enforce this".
Now, although the Bible doesn't really say anything about the particulars of government (no, the US is not Israel), it sure does set some rules when it comes to violence. In fact, peace is one of the fruits of the Spirit. To commit an act of violence against a non-aggressor is decidedly anti-Christian behavior. Our m.o. should be "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peacably with all men." (Rom. 12:18).
There are plenty of behaviors that justify a forceful response. Murderers should be stopped and punished. Drunk drivers should be forcibly removed from the road to keep the public safe. What about moral issues? Christians generally do a good job at asking the most basic question, "Is this behavior right?", but when it comes to politics there's a second question that rarely gets asked, "Should we use violence to enforce/discourage this behavior?"
Let me emphasize that this is not an issue of moral relativism. I do believe in absolute truth and morality, but I also recognize that it's not Biblical to try to force someone into Christian behavior. How do we see Jesus and the apostles respond to immorality in the culture? They preach the gospel, sharply rebuke sin, and call people to repentance. Jesus spent a lot of time calling out religious hypocrisy, rebuking those who were only outwardly religious, but dirty on the inside (Matt. 23:25-28). So why should we use the government to force others into hypocrisy? Jesus tells us instead to clean the inside first (v.26).
We can also learn from history to see the disaster that comes when governments try to regulate morality. I won't even discuss the Catholic church because that's too easy. Even after the reformation, many of the reformers went on to establish their own state churches which bred corruption and often persecuted anabaptist Christians. This even carried over into the early American colonies and states, where taxes were used to fund the state church and refusal to attend church was a punishable offense. Calvin's Geneva is possibly the best example of this corruption. Personal morality was heavily regulated by the state, but in practice, the people of Geneva remained corrupt and only added hypocrisy to their sins. T.H. Dyer quotes Gallife, a Genevese writer, who gave the following account:
To those who imagine Calvin did nothing but good, I could produce our registers, covered with records of illegitimate children, which were exposed in all parts of the town and country; hideous trials for obscenity...I could instance multitudes of forced marriages, in which the delinquents were conducted from the prison to the church; mothers who abandoned their children to the hospital, whilst they themselves lived in abundance with a second husband; bundles of lawsuits between brothers; heaps of secret negotiations; men and women burned for witchcraft; sentences of death, in frightful numbers; and all these things among the generation nourished by the mystic manna of Calvin. (The Life of Calvin, p.153)
These accounts of the personal morality at Geneva are not uncommon. I wouldn't argue that the government caused this immorality, but it certainly did little to nothing to stop it, despite the strict intervention. If Geneva was the greatest example of a society attempting to legislate morality, it was an abysmal failure. The conclusion is obvious: you can not use government to force people into moral behavior, they must be changed from the inside out.
Let's use the gay rights issue as a recent example. Now, I don't believe in gay marriage, because marriage is first and foremost a Christian religious institution, which is defined by the Bible, not governments. With that said, should we deny homosexuals the equal protection of their civil liberties? Yes, homosexuality is sin, but since when is it our responsibility to stop others from sinning through the use of force? Do you really think that making their lives harder will stop them from sinning? Also, do we really want the government to have the ability to forcibly invade our lives for almost any reason? If you want our government to have that kind of power, what are you going to do in ten years when someone is elected who thinks that Christians are undesirables?
I also want to touch on the issue of war, which is another area where libertarians take a different position than typical conservatives. I don't want to get into a complete theology of war, but we should all be able to agree that aggressive war is completely anti-Christian and that every effort should be made to prevent civilian casualties if we do find ourselves in a war. Do we not believe in the sanctity of life? Then how can a Christian vote for a politician who is recklessly aggressive overseas? Or one who is willing to kill civilians through carpet bombing? Our overseas aggression has been justified as a 'war on terror', but I think we all need to be reminded that it has been almost 15 years since the US has been attacked and we're now mostly fighting in countries that had nothing to do it. How does this mesh with Christian principles?
So other than politics, what does this matter? First, if we're going to give account for every idle word, I think it's obvious that our voting record will be a part of that. I've given sufficient reasons to not vote republican, and there are even more reasons to not vote democrat. Some refuse to vote third party because they 'have no chance of winning', but do you really want to have to explain to the Lord why you supported someone who promoted violence? I'd rather use my vote as a message, and give it to the right person with a clean conscience. Second, I've seen several instances where the policies of the 'religious right' hinder the spread of the gospel. Ever try to share the gospel with a gay person? When I do, I usually have to spend the first few minutes breaking down walls that they have put up against Christians...sometimes it doesn't work. If they were offended by the gospel or our stance for righteousness, that would be fine, but many are offended by government interference in their lives.
In conclusion, typical conservative policies stand in contrast to Biblical principles. Libertarianism stands as the best alternative. Christians must abandon their undeserved loyalty to the republican party. We should be the first to stand against any policy of unnecessary violence, both domestic and foreign. Our efforts should be focused on converting sinners through preaching the gospel, not moderating their behavior through politics. Finally, we should conduct ourselves in a way that honors the Savior regardless of whether we can affect political change or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)