Bible Study An insight in to the fundamental nature of sin...

[cyberjosh]

I developed a theory a while back on the fundamental nature of sin. Because of the law we know what sin is, as Paul said. But the law only points out certain types of sin. What is the law itself is based on that determines the nature of sin? What would sin have been for Adam and Eve before they knew good and evil? How could God have been fair to them and blame them for eating the fruit? The answer is quite amazing to think about. Sin is anything outside of God's will or against his will, thus sin even in its most seemingly harmless state (biting into a fruit itself does not constitute an act of sin - there has to be something more) can be defined as anything that is harmful to God's plan for you, thus sin can be equated with disadventageousness. Why was it sin for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit? Not because eating it is fundamentally wrong, but because eating it would disadvantage them. Amazing, it would have been better and to their liking to not eat from the fruit because doing so would hurt them in a way they couldn't imagine. If Adam and Eve had known this then they wouldn't have done it... if they had known it worked against them (same goes for us today - unless we just ignore it).

Things can be sin because of their spiritual results. I once asked myself, on a fundamental level, how is homosexuality wrong? Sure the law tells us it is wrong but it doesn't tell us how or why. Two men or two women can be intimate friends and still not sin, but if they get sexually involved then they've gone to far. So where is the line? What is the defining factor? The answer must be in that somehow, something in the way God made/wired us, having a same sex marital/sexual pairing must work to a spiritual defecit, because love in its simpler form (friendship) between two people of the same sex is not wrong, and actually builds up. The intimate kind of union between two people of the same sex must be degrading (disadvantageous) to the spirit, and not to mention one's moral upstanding. In a similar way, unwittingly, Solomon demonstrates why homosexuality is wrong!!! Though his sexual & marital interactions were heterosexual his multiple wifes and concubines disadvantaged him spiritually and he was led into worship of false gods. Yet another aspect of the reasoning behind the law explained! Because the law commanded kings not to marry more than one woman because the multiple wifes would turn his heart aside, now we know why because we can understand the funamental nature of sin.

This also goes for sin in "gray areas" if it is worthless (vain) and/or disadvantageous then it works against you, thus become sin to you. Paul said I count all things loss, because his previous life had been sin to him, and he actually was working against Christ then. I hope this has shed some insight on the nature of sin. Tell me your thoughts.

 

[cyberjosh]

And another interesting factor to notice with Solomon's sin here is that sin doesn't have to work in a predetermined, certain pattern and can use any one sin to bring about another, in other words one door open to sin is just as good as any other door. What I'm basing this on is that we see that Solomon's sin in his relationships, because of having the many venues of satisfaction (many wives), it effected his worship & praise life in turn. These seem unconnected. One sin can open you up to any or all other kinds of sin. This is getting down into the fundamentals, and admittedly mysteries, of sin in a person's life. You can't break this down into a scientific formula, but if there were "quantum level doctrines" of the Bible then this would be it. One sin can set off another and lead to various other sins.

And actually that can be said also of the flip side, for righteousness. The fundamental specifics of righteousness working in us are a mystery but somehow Jesus imputes his righteousness to us, and also when we sanctify ourselves personally, one area of obedience can open several other doors in our relationship with God. Simply following the law of love can open up doors to a better communication between you and God, possibly excercising your spiritual gifts, and even your financial life. They all seem unrelated but they sort of "come with the package" of how God determines to distribute grace and judgments in our life. One thing can lead to another, this is true for both sin and righteousness. When we realize this we then we see how important it is to be holy in all aspects of life and how we need to avoid things that we know God wishes us not to dabble in, even if we don't understand it ourself, because in his infinite wisdom he saw what was in our best interests, and that sin can be disadvantageous to us personally. This should inspire all the more trust in God for his guiding hand and love for us. We really can trust on God even when we don't always understand.

 

[samuel]

The fundamental nature of sin is putting myself, or someone else before God. Adam was well aware of Gods command to him. of every tree in the garden you may eat, except form the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For the day you eat of that tree; you shall surly die.

Adam did not have to have Gods command to him written in stone, it was written on his heart, and mind. Eve was also aware of the command, as she repeated it to satan. But Eve being the weaker of the two fell into temptation, and partook of the fruit.

Adam seeing what was now done had a choice to obey God, and see Eve die, OR. To decide to eat of the fruit also, and die along with Eve. I believe this was the greater part of Adams sin, he placed his love for Eve before his love for God. This amounts to nothing more than Idolatry. I don’t believe Adam fully understood Gods concept of dying, that the death would be a spiritual one. But Adam probably thought this would mean Eve would no longer be present with him, and he made his choice.

I also, and this is pure speculation, believe that Eve might have been forgiven of her sin, had Adam not participated in it with her or actually because of her.

The fundamental description of sin is S. I. N. = Self Indulgent Nature. Apart from and in rebellion toward God.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Eve was deceived, but Adam blamed Eve AND God. "The woman that You gave me." However, I heard a very nice story about what might have been Adam's reason for eating the fruit. It goes like this: Adam loved Eve so much that he was willing to make the sacrifice not to lose her. Otherwise she would have probably been condemned alone. In that way Adam was a picture of Christ's sacrifice for all of us. I like that whether it's true or not.

 

[cyberjosh]

The fundamental nature of sin is putting myself, or someone else before God. Adam was well aware of Gods command to him. of every tree in the garden you may eat, except form the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For the day you eat of that tree; you shall surly die.

I agree, but putting yourself first is a way in which to sin, not what sin itself is or does to someone. That's what I have attempted to show here. So do you have any comments on the specific material which I have presented? I tried to use good examples.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

However, I heard a very nice story about what might have been Adam's reason for eating the fruit. It goes like this: Adam loved Eve so much that he was willing to make the sacrifice not to lose her. Otherwise she would have probably been condemned alone. In that way Adam was a picture of Christ's sacrifice for all of us. I like that whether it's true or not.

Heh, yeah right. Sounds like a concoction from the same people who named the male thyroid cartilage the "Adam's Apple" seeming to imply that the Apple only stopped half way in Adam's throat and thus Adam never sinned. Mere superstition and myth.

"For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth." (Titus 1:14)

"...nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. " (1 Timothy 1:4)

"But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness." (1 Timothy 4:7)

Romans chapter 5 contradicts that rediculous idea.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Where did people come up with the idea that the fruit was an apple? Maybe some versions and perversions of the Bible say apple instead of fruit, but I only read the King James. I don't believe that the fruit was anything we eat today, but I could be wrong as usual.

 

[cyberjosh]

Where did people come up with the idea that the fruit was an apple? Maybe some versions and perversions of the Bible say apple instead of fruit, but I only read the King James. I don't believe that the fruit was anything we eat today, but I could be wrong as usual.

It is never stated what the fruit was. I merely mentioned it to make a comparative point. You did see what I was getting at though didn't you?

P.S. I have seen a comments so far on what things can be a sin but what about what I said about what I think the fundamental nature of sin is? Does anyone have a direct answer, a yay or nay? I just want to have my ideas properly critiqued to that I can strengthen my position.

 

[samuel]

I don't know whether I would use the term "Disadvantage" personally or not. But terms are rather flexible, and we all have our pet ones.

Sin separates from God, YEP! this is definitely a disadvantage. It definitely puts under control of our flesh nature where sin abounds. One sin leads to another, and so forth to abounding in multiples of sin.

But as Paul said where sin abounds, Grace abounds the more. So the Grace of God is greater then the debasing of sin, and there is always a way back.

1 John 1:9
9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
KJV

 

[cyberjosh]

I don't know whether I would use the term "Disadvantage" personally or not. But terms are rather flexible, and we all have our pet ones.

Sin separates from God, YEP! this is definitely a disadvantage. It definitely puts under control of our flesh nature where sin abounds. One sin leads to another, and so forth to abounding in multiples of sin.

But as Paul said where sin abounds, Grace abounds the more. So the Grace of God is greater then the debasing of sin, and there is always a way back.

1 John 1:9
9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
KJV

Thank you Samuel for the response. I agree, good point.

 

[cyberjosh]

I thought this might be an interesting topic to ressurect. Anybody have any fresh comments on this?

 

[Rick W]

" fundamental nature of sin..."

pride

 

[Guest]

sin is an archery term meaning - "Missing the Mark".

Sin is anything that misses the mark. What is the "mark"?

Obedience to God. Biting fruit isn't a sin, unless God tells you 'not to'.

Since God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and they did eat - Adam and Eve sinned.

 

[DM]

Hello Cybershark.

I think the idea of "sin" as equal to "breaking God's commands" (i.e. a legal paradigm) is what is disadvantageous.

The Hebrew/covenantal aspect of God's "justice", as opposed to the Latin/legal theory of God's "justice", is the paradigm in which to view "sin", I believe.

In other words, "sin" = "unbelief" = "unrighteousness". Adam's mistake was not in breaking a command, per se, but rather that he didn't believe in God's promises (whether those promises had positive or negative effects). By contrast, Abraham, "believed God", and God reckoned that belief (i.e. "faith") as righteousness.

The law of Moses was a temporary agent of God's purpose, introduced 430 years after Abraham received God's "promise" to bless all nations in the seed of Abraham, by creating a record of sin for the nation of Israel. (cf. Galatians chapter 3). Which is to point out, that God's "justice" / "righteousness" always corresponds to God's faithfulness to His promises.

For our part, our believing in the promises that God has made, constitute our "righteousness" / "justification". Hence, "The righteous shall live by his faith". (cf. Habbakuk 2:4).

All of which is to say, that "sin" is nothing more nor less than "unbelief", which is nothing more nor less than "unrighteousess", which is why the Bible says "the just (i.e. righteous) shall live by faith".

Grace and Peace.
David

 

[Vic C.]

Re:

" fundamental nature of sin..."

pride

*a resounding AMEN!*

Pride and vanity go hand in hand. In the movie, "The Devil's Advocate", AL Pacino's character said this:

"Vanity, definitely my favorite sin." ed!:

 

[cyberjosh]

Hello Cybershark.

I think the idea of "sin" as equal to "breaking God's commands" (i.e. a legal paradigm) is what is disadvantageous.

The Hebrew/covenantal aspect of God's "justice", as opposed to the Latin/legal theory of God's "justice", is the paradigm in which to view "sin", I believe.

In other words, "sin" = "unbelief" = "unrighteousness". Adam's mistake was not in breaking a command, per se, but rather that he didn't believe in God's promises (whether those promises had positive or negative effects). By contrast, Abraham, "believed God", and God reckoned that belief (i.e. "faith") as righteousness.

The law of Moses was a temporary agent of God's purpose, introduced 430 years after Abraham received God's "promise" to bless all nations in the seed of Abraham, by creating a record of sin for the nation of Israel. (cf. Galatians chapter 3). Which is to point out, that God's "justice" / "righteousness" always corresponds to God's faithfulness to His promises.

For our part, our believing in the promises that God has made, constitute our "righteousness" / "justification". Hence, "The righteous shall live by his faith". (cf. Habbakuk 2:4).

All of which is to say, that "sin" is nothing more nor less than "unbelief", which is nothing more nor less than "unrighteousess", which is why the Bible says "the just (i.e. righteous) shall live by faith".

Grace and Peace.
David

That is an interesting explanation of God's covenant operations. Only recently have I studied on God's covenant and the covenant concept in the OT & NT. How do you believe works fit into your scheme of faith & righteousness vs. unbelief and wickedness? Do you think that the law was contrary to faith, or how do you think God intended faith in God's unconditional promise, and also the fear of God to do his commandments based on conditions coincide? For Paul said that the law was still good, even though a better thing had replaced it. I'd just like to see your view on how the works fit with faith and why. You did a very good job of showing how faith coincides with the covenant though, IMO.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[DM]

Hi Cybershark.

The idea that "faith" and "work(s)" are somehow at odds, is generally adopted when looking at James 2:14-18 (as I'm sure you already know, but just want to mention it for the sake of anyone else who may read this). In fact, there is no contradiction at all between the two:

1 Thessalonians 1:3 "constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father."

The "work of faith", and the "labor of love", and the "steadfastness of hope" are what remain, are what of birthed out of, if you will, the fulfillment of God's promise to bless all nations in the seed of Abraham: 1 Corinthains 13:13 "But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love."

The supposed dilemma about faith vs. works is rooted in the idea that the law of Moses is somehow synonymous with "works", when that just isn't the case. From the pulpit, the scenario usually goes something like this: "There are only two ways to get to heaven; either obey the law of Moses perfectly, or admit you're a sinner and receive it by grace through faith."

This Latin/legal paradigm creates a problem. It supposes first and foremost, that REAL righteousness springs from obedience to the law of Moses. Consequently, "faith" then becomes a secondary form of "righteousness" in lieu of the real thing. In turn, the REAL righteousness of God, which is and has always been "by faith", is turned into a loophole in the Latin/legal paradigm. Sort of a fall back plan, if you will.

The single biggest problem with this popular view, in my opinion, is that it is nowhere spelled out as such in Scripture. Most of Orthodox Chrsitianity hasn't grasped the Hebrew/covenantal aspect of God's righteousness, and has instead been influenced to see "law keeping" (as in, keeping the law of Moses) through the influence of the Latin/legal concept, which was introduced later through Gentile influence, as being genuine. (The medieval theologian Anselm of Canturbury being one such notable example of popularizing the Latin/legal doctrine of the atonement)

By contrast, the Biblical case that God's faithfulness to His promises constitute God's own righteousness is abundantly clear: "You found his heart faithful before You, and made a covenant with him to give him the land of the Canaanite, of the Hittite and the Amorite, of the Perizzite, the Jebusite and the Girgashite - to give to his descendants. And You have fulfilled Your promise, for You are righteous." (Nehemiah 9:8).

In conclusion, I don't believe that the law of Moses is "contrary" to faith, per se. In fact, human "faithfulness" (i.e. believing in God's promises) was, for Israel, to be exercised by their obedience to the law of Moses. They could either express their righteousness of faith/belief through their obedience to the law, or they could express their unrighteousness of their lack of faith/belief through their disobedience to it. The "fear" instilled in them through the punishment of "disobedience" to the law, is similar to prohibitions/restrictions put on immature children who need guidance for their own good. But God's goal is for humanity to mature - to grow up - so that a system of law becomes totally unnecessary. This plan (logos) of God, to bless all nations in Abraham's seed (Jesus), is a plan to see us mature under the law of love. As long as a fear of the law remained, God's people would never be able to exercise their freedom responsibly. This is precisely why that, now, "there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:1-2)

And again, "Therefore the law has become our tutor to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith".

All of which is indeed, "good news".

Grace and peace.
David