Professional Documents
Culture Documents
__________________
A Paper
Presented to
__________________
In Partial Fulfillment
__________________
by
Wes Terry
doctrine of sin is also interrelated to several other fields of theology such as theology
proper, soteriology, and ecclesiology. One’s belief about the origin and transmission of
sin, its effects on humanity, and how one’s sinful condition is remedied is a centerpiece to
how one understands other doctrines. Although the doctrine of sin is important and
relevant, there are few today who, outside of academic circles, are open to a meaningful
and honest discourse on the subject. The very word “sin” has become somewhat of a
taboo; and, in an age of that seeks to redefine or eradicate morality, a conversation about
the source of sin has been rejected. Therefore, the following, seeking to reignite a
discourse on the source of sin, will illustrate that all sin flows from the heart and that the
failure to address sin at that level will have devastating consequences for every level of
society.
Historically, it has been generally affirmed that the source of sin is in the heart.
This assertion has been made in Scripture by a variety of biblical authors. According to
Moses, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”1 (Genesis 6:5) King
David instructed his readers to, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the
springs of life.” (Proverbs 4:23) Or, in the words of Jesus, “What comes out of the mouth
proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts,
1
All Scripture quotations will be taken from the English Standard Version
unless otherwise noted.
2
3
murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” (Matthew 15:18-19)
Other Scriptures, attesting to the current condition of the human heart, also show that the
heart is the source of sin. Jeremiah explained that, “The heart is deceitful above all
things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) So, not only is the
heart desperately sick and the source of sin, but man cannot even fully comprehend the
Despite Jeremiah’s statement that man cannot fully understand the condition of
the human heart, a defining of terms is still necessary. Therefore, a definition for the heart
and for sin will be given. Anthony Hoekema submits that the heart is “a description of the
inner core of the person; the ‘organ’ of thinking, feeling, and willing; the point of
concentration of all of our functions.”2 Pascal described the heart as the intuitive mind
which perceives of and hopes in God by faith; it is the source of human volition.3 These
definitions should suffice for the purposes of this discussion. However, the definition of
sin needs a little more clarity. Several definitions will be explained in hopes of achieving
a correct understanding.
blindness that robs a previously sighted person of his or her sight.”4 Sin has not
necessarily changed who human beings are in their essence. Rather, it has changed their
ability to live out their humanity as they ought. In other words, mankind still maintains
the image of God but sin has damaged man’s ability to image God correctly. Sin has not
2
Anthony Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Grand Grapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1986), 172.
3
Pascal, Blaise, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees, ed. Peter
Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 228.
4
Ibid., Pg 169.
4
brought about a race of men less than human; it has just thwarted man’s utility so that he
functions wrongly.
Also, sin does not exist as a power in and of itself. Rather, sin only has its
existence in relation to God’s moral will. R. Stanton Norman submits that, “a biblical
definition of sin can only be understood in relationship with God. Although having moral
and social implications, sin is basically an affront against the person of God.”5 To
summarize, although sin has no essence outside of the moral will of God, it manifests
itself in humanity at every level of his being and thus prevents him from treasuring God
as he ought to be treasured.
The human heart is the well-spring of this handicap and for one to be freed
from the prison of sin, he must receive a new heart. The word received is used because
according to the Bible, man cannot create a new heart in and of himself. Man cannot cure
himself of his blindness. He must have someone else cure his heart condition; he must
have someone else give sight to his blind eyes.6 The power of sin is rooted deep within
one’s heart, damaging the totality of one’s being. Likewise, the solution to sin can only be
Because sin finds its source in the heart and the heart is the well-spring of life,
the problem of sin is pervasive. The fact that sin is so pervasive has led some to consider
humanity as “totally depraved.” Wayne House explains the Calvinist persuasion this way.
“The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is sinful and
desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore he
5
R. Stanton Norman, "Human Sinfulness," in A Theology for the Church, ed.
Akin, Danny (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Academic, 2007), 450.
6
Henry Brandt and Kerry L. Skinner, Breaking Free From the Bondage of Sin
(Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1994), 68.
5
will not – indeed he cannot – choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.”7 Hoekema,
distinguishing between the structural and functional elements of the image of God, states
that “fallen human beings still possess the gifts and capacities with which God has
endowed them, but they now use these gifts in sinful and disobedient ways.”8
Given this nuance, Hoekema rejects the term “total depravity” and chooses
instead the term “pervasive depravity.” While man is spiritually incapable of doing
anything meritorious of salvation, the structural elements of his human essence have been
maintained.9 In other words, the structure of the human heart is preserved. The heart is
still able to serve as that which gives life to the rest of human nature: not only in the
physical sense but also in the metaphysical realm of the emotions, one’s affections, the
intellect, and the will. However, the heart functions incorrectly. It feels, loves, thinks, and
chooses wrongly.
Though the image of God in man is not destroyed, sin has greatly damaged it.
will, a mind which is weak and darkened cannot be called sound and whole… it did not
Or, as Pascal wrote, “It is natural for the heart to love the universal being or itself,
according to its allegiance, and it hardens itself against either as it chooses. You have
rejected one and kept the other.”11 Calvin might disagree with Pascal’s assertion that the
heart “chooses” to love something other than God but, despite the cause, the result is still
7
Wayne H. House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992), 99.
8
Anthony Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Grand Grapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1986), 72.
9
Ibid., Pg 150.
10
Calvin, John, The Institutes of Christian Religion, ed. Tony Lane and Hilary
Osborne (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 92.
6
the same. Man, because of his corrupt heart, loves Gods wrongly. Because of his sin
nature, mankind attributes his affections to himself rather than his Creator.
Both Calvin and Pascal show that sin, as it has been described above, is not a
separate force outside of man; as if man were more morally inculpable. Instead, they
show that the source of sin comes from within man, and that this internal corruption has
resulted in man choosing to love himself and his desires rather than God and his
purposes. As Augustine wrote, “I loved to excuse myself and to accuse some other
mysterious ‘thing’ inside me that was disconnected from the real me. In truth it was
wholly me and my wicked heart that divided me from myself.”12 Sin has no ontological
Ever since the fall, man’s heart has existed estranged from God and entangled
in sin. Though modern scholarship seeks to redefine and excuse human sinfulness, the
corrupt human heart will continue to show why the Bible is correct in affirming the
consequences of man’s rebellion against God. In the words of G.K Chesterton, “Certain
new theologians dispute Original Sin, which is the only part of Christian theology that
can really be proved.”13 Sin is the one element of Christian doctrine that needs no proof.
One does not have to look far to see the effects that sin has had on the world. It has split
up families and churches, it has ruined successful careers, it has subjected the creation to
11
Pascal, Blaise, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees, ed. Peter
Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 231.
12
Emphasis added. Augustine, The Confessions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
2005), 83.
13
Chesterton, G.K, Orthodoxy, ed. Craig M. Kibler (Lenoir: Reformation Press,
2002), 33.
7
futility, it has strained every human relationship, and it has infiltrated every level of
society.
Eliminating the word sin from the human vocabulary will not change the
nature of sin, nor will it cure the condition of the human heart. As Stanton Norman
writes, “We deceive ourselves if we believe that we can either minimize or eliminate the
misunderstandings about sin do not lessen our accountability.”14 In fact, such efforts
could themselves be considered sinful. At the very least they are extremely ignorant of
the available datum. The problem of sin is the starting point for the strongest saints and
for the staunchest skeptics. Yet, modern man just dismisses both options. They rest in the
If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a
cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must
either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present
union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to
think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.15
Yet, it is highly irrational to deny the existence of the cat! Sin cannot be
ignored just because its implications are offensive to the human psyche and insinuate the
existence of a holy God with moral mandates. These are not satisfactory reasons, nor will
they remove the present reality of such a God. Reality is reality whether one comes to
terms with it or not. Therefore, sin must be reckoned with. Sin must once again be
understood and talked about. The consequences of non-discourse are far too great to
dismiss as irrelevant.
14
R. Stanton Norman, "Human Sinfulness," in A Theology for the Church, ed.
Akin, Danny (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Academic, 2007), 410.
15
Chesterton, G.K, Orthodoxy, ed. Craig M. Kibler (Lenoir: Reformation Press,
2002), 33.
8
The Consequence of Non-Discourse
Only one question remains. Why is there no honest discussion over the source
and consequences of sin? Perhaps this is because there is so much concern over creating
environments where modern man feels good about himself. This “positive thinking”
mentality has also plagued the Church. All too often Christians, instead of addressing sin
at its source, only disguise it with psychotherapy and pharmaceuticals. This is not to say
that medicines and therapy are unnecessary. However, such methods need to be evaluated
as to whether or not they are the best means of addressing a person’s sin problem. In most
cases, (outside of mental illness) those methods are not.16 When psychology and drugs
become the primary means of addressing human sinfulness because the concept of sin as
A discussion of sin is not helpful for one who wants to see himself as
“basically good.” In fact, one’s badness should instead be ignored. C.S. Lewis illustrates,
“When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is left in
him. When a man is getting worse he understands his badness less and less. A moderately
bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right.”17
According to Lewis, the more one ignores his badness the better he will feel about
himself. Therefore, a culture of thoroughly bad men who choose to remain ignorant of
their badness, will see themselves as quite alright. Morality will take on a whole new
definition. This is how and why American culture has suffered from a slow erosion of
sickened condition, excuses itself for its corruption by explaining away what corruption
means. This is what happens when a culture fails to discuss sin at its source.
David Wells explains that when it comes to a correct understanding of sin, the Church is
just as lost as the rest of humanity. He further attests that if the Church fails to recover a
correct understanding of sin “evangelical faith would lose – if it has not already lost – its
moral pungency and its spiritual authenticity.”18 The Apostle John would say that the
Church has “deceived” herself and that the truth is not in her. (1 John1:8-9) Deception
might be excusable for a person who does not know Christ. However, it is inexcusable for
the Christian.
culture around her self-destructs due to its ignorance. Author Os Guinness illustrates this
point quite vividly. With the following words Guinness describes the condition of a
culture which has lost its vision of morality. “Each transgression serves as the permission
and the dare to press on to the next. The result is an entire society following the addict’s
piecemeal slide into bondage and a civilization’s descent into decay.”19 It is the
Christian’s unique responsibility to pull the culture out of her decay and lead to men
towards a correct understanding of the truth. In the prophetic words of Francis Schaffer,
“Each generation of the Church in each setting has the responsibility of communicating
the Gospel in understandable terms, considering the language and thought forms of that
18
David F. Wells, Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover its Moral
Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 4.
19
Os Guinness, Unspeakable: Facing Up to the Challenge of Evil (New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 2006), 104.
10
setting.”20 Schaffer points out that every generation has an evangelistic mandate to take
the steps necessary to engage their culture with the truth of the Gospel.
Before this can take place, the Church must hold an orthodox position on the
doctrine of sin. If not, the Church cannot correctly communicate the Gospel: especially in
a postmodern culture. The Church must regain a position that sees the heart as the source
of sin. Additionally, it must see Christ as the only one able to renew man’s heart and
remedy the problem of human sinfulness. There is a great need to reignite a discussion
over the condition of the human heart. The culture needs it, the Church needs it, and,
without an honest discussion over sin, both will self-destruct. Fortunately, Christ
promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church and so it is time for
Conclusion
In conclusion, a few things will be reiterated. First, the human heart is in bad
shape morally; and, since the heart is the wellspring of life, all sin flows from it. Second,
there is only one man who is able and willing to cure the human heart and that person is
the God-man Jesus Christ. Third, Christ will only cure the heart of those who own up to
their sin and trust him to cleanse their heart. Fourth, repentance and confession will never
happen apart from a correct, biblically faithful, understanding of human sinfulness. Fifth,
resurgence of honest discussion over the source of human sinfulness. Therefore, the
Christian must equip himself with the resources necessary to engage in conversation that
will help bring a decaying culture out of her despair. Only the Christian is uniquely
equipped to do this. Only the Christian understands truly what constitutes sin and from
20
Francis Schaeffer, The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (Wheaton: Crossway,
1990), 270.
11
where it originates. Where are these believers today? More importantly, are they being
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brandt, Henry and Kerry L. Skinner. Breaking Free From the Bondage of Sin. Eugene:
Harvest House Publishers, 1994.
Calvin, John. The Institues of Christian Religion. Edited by Tony Lane and Hilary
Osborne. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
House, Wayne H. Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992.
Norman, Stanton R. "Human Sinfulness." In A Theology for the Church, ed. Akin, Danny,
409-478. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Academic, 2007.
Pascal, Blaise. Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees. Edited by Peter
Kreeft. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993.
Schaffer, Francis. The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: The Three Essential Books in One
Volume. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990.
Wells, David F. Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover its Moral Vision.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.