CHAPTER V

Our Need of God’s Redemption

INTRODUCTION

It is not at all unusual for someone to say to a Presbyterian, “I do not like your idea of the sinfulness of man. You make people feel like so many worms. And you try to make people good by telling them how bad they are. You discourage rather than encourage the achievement of goodness.”

Some Presbyterians may be taken aback by such a charge. But those who have thought through their beliefs may well suggest that the taller the building, the deeper the foundation. We must be honest about man’s sinfulness if we are to show men how to become righteous.

We should also clarify the point of view from which we begin our thinking. If we are merely comparing the goodness of one person with another, we may be optimistic about that person. But if we start with the viewpoint of the holy character of God, we may change our ideas. Black beside gray shows less contrast than does black beside white. Presbyterians begin their thinking about man’s sin in the light of the holiness of God. But they do so only in order to lead men to the holiness of God. Let us therefore examine the meaning of the fall, the subtle and destructive power of sin, and the punishment which is due for sin.

A. THE MEANING OF THE FALL

Presbyterians recognize their need of redemption, not only because of their own sinful acts, but also because of a historic fall on the part of our first parents. Adam and Eve were created in an estate of holiness and happiness, but fell from their holiness by yielding to temptation and eating the forbidden fruit. Their sin may be defined as selfishness, as rebellion, and as disobedience. All of these and more are involved in their eating of the forbidden fruit.

Several questions come to our minds as we think about the sin of Adam and Eve. One is why a good God would permit this sin. Another is whether or not God is responsible for the evil that is in the world. A third is whether or not moral traits can be inherited. Before attempting to answer these questions, let us consider four possible kinds of worlds that might have been created.

1. THREE KINDS OF WORLD ARE UNSATISFACTORY

It is possible to conceive of a world in which “there is no absolute authority over man. In such a world every man could do as he pleased. This kind of world would lead to anarchy in thought and in conduct. It would lead (as it has time and again) to lying and cheating and killing, to all forms of dishonesty and pride. It would lead to a world in which no one could be trusted. This kind of world invites totalitarian dictatorship in which the strong oppress the weak and use them for their own purposes. In spite of all the evidences that point to this kind of world, Christians do not believe that it gives an adequate picture of the world in which they live.

It is possible also to conceive of a world in which there is absolute moral authority, in which God is responsible for every act of every person, and in which human beings are like puppets in a puppet show. God would move the strings and men would react. They would be automatons or machines or puppets. No moral choices would be made except by the God who manipulates the strings. Presbyterians do not believe that God made this kind of world.

A third possible world is a world where man sets up the organized authority at first and this authority perpetuates itself in the name of society. The authority may be primarily religious or political. It requires blind and unthinking obedience on the part of those over whom it is exercised. No matter what the teaching may be, if it is given in the name of the state or of the church, it must be obeyed. To disobey is to suffer discipline which may be very severe. Men must obey regardless of their own judgment or conscience about a given idea, dogma, or practice. The totalitarian representatives of this point of view are in our world and are at odds with one another. Both want to rule and to accomplish their own ends. They convince themselves that these ends justify the means used for their accomplishment. But Presbyterians do not believe that God created a world where the individual has no direct responsibility to Himself. They believe that while the religious authority exercised by the Roman church has some real values, it is not the kind of authority God intended or that Christ taught should be established.

2. THE WORLD OF THE BIBLE

The fourth kind of world, we believe, is revealed in the scriptures. It is a world in which, in order to provide for moral responsibility, man has freedom of choice within limits set by God. God created this world which in itself was not evil, but had in it the possibility of evil through the wrong choices of man. God permitted Adam and Eve to eat of all of the trees of the garden except one. He set limits on that one, not so much to make life hard for Adam and Eve as to permit them to grow through their faithful obedience. They assumed that their way was better for them than God’s way for them. They yielded to temptation and decided to disobey. They suffered in personality and in experience for their disobedience.

We cannot be certain why God permitted evil to come into the world. We can recognize the fact that anarchy or a puppet show or a self-perpetuating human authority tends to destroy moral freedom and moral responsibility. And man was made in the moral and spiritual image of God — capable of moral choices which would have good or evil consequences. We can therefore see the logical necessity for the possibility of evil if there was to be any human responsibility. To deny the choice of man is to remove his responsibility and to stunt his capacity for moral growth.

3. GOD IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR EVIL IN THE WORLD

In reply to the second question, “Is God responsible for the evil in the world?”, we give a negative reply. God created a world where evil was possible through man’s moral choice, but man himself chose to rebel and to disobey. Man brought the consequences on himself in a moral universe. God permitted this sin but did not decree it.

4. REASONS WHY MORAL CHOICES ARE IMPORTANT

If we should inquire, “Why are moral choices so important?” a ready answer offers itself. We make our choices and they in turn make us. A series of choices to resist God, like those made by the selfish Pharaoh of Egypt in Moses’ time, hardens the personality and the will against God. A series of choices to obey God, as illustrated by Saul of Tarsus during and after his conversion, makes a person more responsive to God. We become better or worse through our moral choices. As we saw in the preceding chapter, while God is sovereign, men are free to choose.

5. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FALL TO ADAM AND HIS POSTERITY

When we think of what the fall meant to Adam and Eve, we are led to realize that they had a consciousness of disobedience to God’s moral law. This kind of disobedience is described in the Greek Version of the Old Testament with the word anomia. It means a breaking over, a transgression of a known law of God. The other consciousness that Adam and Eve had was a consciousness of having failed to measure up to the full will of God for their lives. In the same Version this experience is described with the word harmartia. Interestingly enough, the use of this word in the Greek Old Testament and in the New Testament is about three times as frequent as the use of anomia. The idea is well summarized in James 4:17: “Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

Adam and Eve did not steal. They did not commit murder. They did not bear false witness against one another. They disobeyed God and they failed to measure up to their possibilities as creatures of God. Their moral choices led to the corruption of their whole selves. This corruption is referred to in our Confession of Faith as the fall from original innocence and grace to an estate of sin and misery.

The nature of this estate of sin and misery is described in the Larger Catechism, Answer to Question 25, in these words:

“The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.”

Observe the sense of guilt which drives the sinner away from happy fellowship with a righteous God. This sense of guilt led Adam and Eve to try to hide from God. But Adam became utterly indisposed to good, unable to achieve it in his life, and wholly inclined to continual evil.

The Presbyterian Standards describe the meaning of the fall to Adam’s posterity in these words:

“Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way, are conceived and born in sin.” (Question 26, Larger Catechism)

This doctrine, which was debated in the time of Augustine and has been a matter of dispute ever since, recognizes the close relationship between the body and the personality of an individual. It takes human beings to be whole persons, not persons in isolation from their bodies. It recognizes the universality of sin among men. It sees human nature as sinful, not only in the sense of failing to measure up to the best that is possible, but also as acting contrary to God’s holy will. Again we must keep the point of view suggested at the beginning of this chapter. Man is looked upon as sinful, not so much from man’s point of view, but from God’s point of view, which is one of complete holiness.

Someone will ask, “Do you mean to infer by this doctrine that I inherited my sinfulness from my saintly mother?” To this question we would reply that your saintly mother would probably be quick to recognize her sinfulness before God. It is her constant recognition of her own weakness and her constant laying hold on God’s redemptive power which has made her saintly. She would be the first to tell you that she was not born a saint, but that she grew into whatever saintliness of character she has after her rebirth from above.

A second answer that she would likely give is that you must overcome the natural sinfulness you received through birth in the same way that she did. You cannot choose or desire the best in holiness without the help of the Spirit of God. Your very resistance to the fact of your own sinfulness is evidence that, apart from the Holy Spirit, you would deal with your sin by denying its existence. And that is partly what you have received by natural generation.

A third answer she would give you is that while you are born in sin, you are also born with the possibility of responding to the Spirit of God. You cannot save yourself, but you may respond to the Spirit of God and be reborn from above. She would urge you to recognize this necessity. For while she may provide food and clothing, she cannot make you grow. You must grow physically and spiritually through your own exercise. She can transmit to you the possibility of growth, but you have to experience growth yourself. So you gain nothing by getting off into an academic debate about whether or not moral traits can be transmitted by physical generation. For moral traits cannot be separated from the persons who develop them. And even those who deny the possibility of transmitting moral traits must recognize the tendency of children to emulate the moral traits gained from parents whose example is transmitted unawares.

Persons who suffer from blindness of mind, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience or vile affections (The Larger Catechism, Q. 28), may well concern themselves more to seek redemption from God than to deny their sin by denying the possibility of inheriting it.

Many Presbyterians will freely admit the difficulties associated with this doctrine, which is sometimes called the doctrine of total depravity. Yet they find clear indications in the scriptures that they deny their sin at their own peril. The fall means that mankind has within itself the seeds of its own destruction as well as the possibility of salvation for all who will commit themselves to God in Christ. Few parents with small children will deny the actual presence at tpreimes of the spirit of disobedience which dwells in all of us.

B. THE SUBTLE AND DESTRUCTIVE POWER OF SIN

The continuation of sin in man is described in the Confession in the following significant words:

“From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do precede all actual transgressions.

“This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated: and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.” (Chapter VI, Articles IV and V)

1. THE DOWNWARD PATH OF MAN

Do these words mean that God deliberately and arbitrarily makes men suffer? Not at all. Men suffer the consequences of their actual transgressions because they get started on the downward path and lose their insight into what is right and what is wrong. The steps downward are well illustrated in Romans 1:18-32. Man’s first step toward his self-destruction is his failure to see God in nature. This leads him to give up a Theistic view of the universe and inevitably to become vain in his reasoning. As a consequence his senseless heart is darkened. He cannot think clearly about God or about what is right or wrong.

The next step is to make nature his god. To be sure, he may single out some creature or some part of the creation as an object of worship. Often materialism becomes king and men go mad with greed or power. A Hitler or a Stalin or a political party may take the place of God. In the name of such a god much havoc and evil have been wrought in the world. Innocent people have been caught up in the vortex of the flaming and destructive power of sin. Whether the form of materialism is money or power or ambition, it destroys the very kind of life it tends to deify.

Then because men refuse to have God in their knowledge and because they make some part of nature their god, they are given up to abuse their bodies. This they do with every vile passion which suggests itself to them. Like a descending spiral, they are led from the abuse of their bodies to the fourth stage of debasing their minds so that they think more like beasts than like men. This combination of vile passions and debased minds leads ultimately to the final outcome of self- destruction.

Sad to say, this description is not merely a theological description, for it has frequently been illustrated in history. And unless by some means the course of sin is checked in a human life, it tends to run in the same direction. Men lack the ability to view themselves objectively because their minds get tainted to a point where it is hard to face unpleasant facts about themselves. This is why they need the Bible to serve as their guide and example.

2. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF SIN

Dr. Lewis J. Sherrill has interpreted the experience of sin with the terms of guilt, anxiety, and hostility. (Guilt and Redemption, John Knox Press, Richmond, Va.) Our sense of guilt leads us to run away from God, as Adam and Eve did in the garden. We may do this with excuses which become reasons for neglecting the appointed means of spiritual growth. The guilt may become deeply rooted in personality so that anxiety develops over the fact that we hate to face our sin as it is. Therefore we try to keep it from coming to the surface of our minds and transfer that anxiety to the many other things that our minds conjure up as possibilities. Financial status, physical health, social prestige, or something else becomes a matter of great concern. Because of this strain of anxiety upon personality, we become hostile to ourselves but transfer that hostility often to other people. This hostility may be toward our own selves in a way that produces stomach ulcers or heart trouble. It may be toward a parent, a husband, a wife, a child, a minister, a church, a friend. It may be toward God in Christ. It will find a dozen reasons for not doing the one thing that is needful in starting a new life. But the quality of the reasons is not nearly so important as the fact that they prevent the person from finding his peace and joy in Jesus Christ.

3. RATIONALIZATION AS AN ESCAPE FROM THE REALITY OF SIN

Two particular forms of false reasoning (sometimes called rationalization) are sufficiently prevalent to deserve mention.

a. ATTRIBUTING THE BEST MOTIVES TO OURSELVES

Let us imagine that two men who are business competitors happen to be officers in the same church. And let us suppose that in the mind of the one who has been less successful than the other there is a jealousy or hostility deep down within his soul. Some decision has to be made about a change in the church program. One man favors it and the other opposes it. The one opposing, who already has a grudge he cannot bring into the open, finds a matter of principle involved. He can stick with that matter of principle without exposing his grudge of which he is not proud. In that way he may get the better of his business competitor, and at the same time attribute to himself the best possible motive for his action.

Of course this kind of practice is not limited to business competitors. It finds expression among children, youth, and grownups alike. But it is a common weakness that must be guarded against at all times.

b. FINDING GOOD REASONS FOR UNWORTHY ACTS

Another common way that sin destroys human personality is by enabling individuals to find good reasons for unworthy acts. A young service man was talking with a minister about his wife. He was going home to get possession of his child because he could not trust his wife. He heard that she was having dates with other men. When he was asked how he proposed to care for the child, it developed that he had a girl friend near the base who would take care of it for him. By some twist of reasoning he had convinced himself that while his wife should be faithful to him or lose custody of her child, he could be unfaithful and claim custody through her failure. He was seeking a good reason for his unworthy conduct.

Such a man is following the logic of Plutarch in his advice to wives not to be angry with their husbands when they indulged in some intrigue with a maid or harlot. “The wife should realize,” he said, “that the husband is indulging his passions with another woman out of respect for his wife.” This seems a very peculiar way to show respect for one’s wife, but it reveals how an intelligent man can find good reasons for unworthy acts. It also reveals the destructive power of sin in the human mind. This destructive power of sin which works so subtly must never be ignored or underestimated, for it is a constant peril to one’s moral and spiritual life.

C. CONSIDERATION OF THE PUNISHMENT WHICH IS DUE FOR SIN

The above discussion indicates that sin brings its own punishment. Someone may ask, “Is not God arbitrary in punishing people for sin?” The answer is a decided NO. The punishment is not arbitrarily given from without human personality, but developed naturally from within. This is true because of the evil character of sin and because of the constant working of sin in the human mind and heart.

C. S. Lewis’ “Screwtape Letters” show clearly how evil forces are constantly at work to prevent a man from becoming his best self. At every turn in the road the wormwoods of Satan are at work. When these forces find a willing ear on the part of human beings, they continue their destructive activity. And man’s nature is such that it seems easier to follow the easy road to destruction and lack of purpose and self-satisfaction than it is to follow the high road to redemption. To surrender the best self in each real battle is to put habit on the side of failure. And sin builds up the power of habit, giving good reasons for bad choices until they seem to be justified. This becomes easier still when the current of public opinion flows in its favor.

1. WHAT MEN DESERVE

What ought God to do with men who are so bent on their own moral and spiritual destruction? They have no moral claim on Him whom they forsake in thought, word, and deed. But thanks be to God, He offers His pardon and power to all who believe. He does not leave Himself without witness as the Holy Spirit works in men to bring God’s own to salvation. God will not condone sin, but He will forgive it. He will not destroy man’s moral nature but He will transform it. And even though sin is not completely overcome in this life, the final and ultimate victory will be the Lord’s. How this is possible will be shown in the next few studies.

2. WHAT MEN OUGHT TO DO

What ought men to do about their sin? First, let them recognize it. They will never get rid of sin by denying its existence. Second, let them heed God’s call to forsake it. “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” (Isa 55:7.) Third, let them seek God’s cleansing power in Jesus Christ. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9.)