The Doctrine of Sin (Hamartiology)

 

5.1 Overview

Hamartiology is the doctrine of sin [i.e. "sin" in Greek is the term (hamartia)]. We teach the biblical position on hamartiology (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12; 8:8; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 2:1-3; 1 John 3:4; 5:17).

Hamartiology is a very important subject because it concerns man in his fall, and the nature of sin in man. We teach that understanding hamartiology must be approached from a theocentric perspective – that is, thinking God’s thoughts after Him. We teach that the word of God objectively reveals the truth concerning the origin of sin, the nature of sin, the sin of the first man Adam and the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race. Genesis chapter 3 is the historical account of the fall of man, that is the historical account of the origin of sin in the human race. We teach that Genesis 3 is not myth, allegory or legend. We teach that Genesis 3 is the literal historical account of man in his fall and the origin of the nature of sin in man. The Word of God teaches that man was originally created holy and righteous in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1-2), but then man disobeyed God (Genesis 3:1-7). It is because of the original fall of man that man became by that totally depraved in moral ruin.

We DO NOT teach that man evolved into the violent sinful creature he is today.

Instead, we teach that man was originally created by God holy, then man disobeyed God, and as a result man fell. Man’s violently sinful nature today is traceable back to the sin of Adam. Man is in original sin and total depravity as the result of the fall in the Garden of Eden.

We teach the biblical position on the origin of sin, the sin of Adam, the imputation of Adam’s sin, and the nature of sin.[1]

 

5.1.1 The Definition of Sin

We teach the biblical definition of sin – namely, sin is lawlessness. [2] We define sin as lawlessness because the Apostle John defined sin as lawlessness in his first epistle when he wrote, “everyone committing sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4; cf. 5:17). [3] 

We teach that the essence of sin is unbelief. (cf. John 16:9; Romans 14:23; Hebrews 12:1).[4]

Therefore, we teach that God could not have created sin because God would never create unbelief and lawlessness.

Sin is any attitude or action that manifests unbelief in God and demonstrates lawless behavior against the righteous standard of God. Sin is committed by fallen beings in their thoughts, attitudes, words and behavior.

We teach that selfishness and pride is not a complete definition of sin. Selfishness and pride certainly are manifestations of sin and are indeed sin. However, it is unbelief and lawlessness that define the essence and nature of sin. We teach that selfishness and pride are the product of the essential character of sin. 

 

5.2 The Origin of Sin.

5.2.1 Overview

The Word of God teaches that sin originated in the angelic realm (cf. Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12-19; Luke 10:18-21; Revelation 12:3-4) and then with man (cf. Genesis 3). The fall of man was accomplished through the agency of Satan. We teach that the derivation of sin (i.e. origin of sin) must be qualified by a distinction between two classifications in the creative order, namely the angelic realm and the realm of mankind.

 

5.2.2 The Origin of Sin in the Angelic Realm

The Word of God explains how sin originated in both of these two realms and the distinction between the subsequent consequences for each. Concerning the angelic realm, the Word of God reveals the origin of sin in the angelic realm (cf. Isa 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12-19).[5]

We teach that sin originated in the angelic world. We teach that the origin of sin is traceable even beyond the fall of man as described in Gen 3, and is traceable to a fall that occurred in the angelic world. God created a host of spirit beings called angels, and they were all originally good because their original created nature came forth from the hand of their Maker (cf. Gen 1:31). However, there was a fall that occurred in the angelic world, in which many angels fell away from God. The exact time of this fall was sometime directly before the fall of man described in Genesis 3 because in John 8:44 Jesus called the devil a murderer [lit. ἀνθρωποκτόνος (“man killer”)] from the beginning (i.e. ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς), and the Apostle John wrote in 1 John 3:8, that the devil has been sinning from the beginning (i.e. ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς). Also see Luke 10:18-21.[6]

The origin of sin in the human race is recorded in Genesis 3. The spiritual serpent (i.e. the devil) used the physical serpent to tempt the first woman to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God had commanded Adam not to eat from (cf. Genesis 3:1-7). The serpent succeeded in deceiving the woman (2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14). She ate the fruit, gave it to her husband with her, he ate and that was the first sin.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is critical to the discussion concerning the eternal decree and theodicy. In Genesis 2, the LORD God put the first man in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep (cf. Genesis 2:15). In Genesis 2:16-17, the LORD God gave the man a commandment with a prohibition – “The LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.’” Some believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a figure for potentially unlimited knowledge, it being a good tree, but man was not to eat it because it would result in man obtaining human autonomy (a law unto oneself) and as such man would know unlimited knowledge apart from God. However, man did not receive unlimited knowledge after he transgressed the commandment (cf. Genesis 3:7; 22). It is true that the nature of the serpent’s temptation in Genesis 3 involved the temptation to personal autonomy because that was the nature of the first sin in the angelic world – namely personal autonomy apart from God – thus one’s attempt to dethrone God’s reign over one’s self (c.f. Isaiah 14:12-16). However, the fruit was not the fruit of sovereignty because the man and the woman did not become like God in omniscience but rather lost their original holiness and righteousness by sinning against God’s command. God could very well be mocking the serpent’s temptation in Genesis 3:22b-d when the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil . . . .” The first man and woman were in a state of original righteousness and holiness and they lost their original righteousness and holiness when Adam sinned. Man could only obtain the knowledge of good and evil from the tree through experience, not omniscience. Only God is omniscient and has perfect knowledge of good and evil but never evil through committing it because God is self-existent and perpetually morally perfect – God cannot sin. God does not sin. God has never sinned. God will never sin. Therefore, the commandment prohibition from God for the man not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has three points:

  1. It was a command from God (therefore a violation of God’s command is sin cf. 1 John 3:4).

  2. Because the command was a prohibition it represented the Creator’s predetermined will for man to respect the limitations God had set for man toward evil (this maintains that God has decreed all things to come to pass, even that it was His permissive will to allow evil to enter into the creation – yet God is not responsible for sin. Instead, sin is the violation of God’s commandment. The responsibility for sin is with the creature who disobeyed, but not with the Creator who set the restriction on evil).

  3. The warning and promise of spiritual death for disobedience (“for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die”). This represented God’s will to maintain His holiness and wrath – anger, wrought harmoniously with all of His attributes, to prescribe judgment to restrain evil and ultimately destroy evil – even the death of death through the death of Christ and Christ’s subsequent resurrection from the dead to provide deliverance to some from God’s judgment on evil.

To end, the parameters established by the Creator for man to respect – that is, the commandment not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, showed God’s sovereign will and man’s culpability to be held morally and legally responsible for transgressing the commandment (cf. Romans 5:12-14). When Adam sinned, the paradise and original union with God was lost; everything changed. Mankind’s current post-fall condition did not exist when Adam was originally created.

 

5.3 The Sin of Adam

We teach that in Adam’s sin of willful disobedience (cf. 1 Timothy 2:13-14) to the revealed will and command of God (cf. Genesis 2:17), man lost his original holiness and righteousness, received the penalty of spiritual death, and thus man became the object of the wrath of God (Romans 1:18; 5:12; Ephesians 2:1-3).

 

5.3.1 The Consequence of the Sin of Adam

We teach that before the original fall of man, Adam was given liberty (cf. Genesis 2:16). We teach that man’s original liberty and freedom was not autonomous – for this liberty was defined by God. We teach that the boundaries of that original freedom were set by God. We teach that men and women are not autonomous. In other words, men and women are not a law unto themselves. We teach that Adam was originally created to enjoy the liberty God gave him and respect the limitations that God placed upon him. However, Adam sinned against God which immediately resulted in the consequence of spiritual death (Genesis 2:17; 3:6-7; Romans 6:23) and was later sentenced to physical death (cf. Genesis 3:19; 5:5; Romans 6:23). We teach when the two eventually merge together, that is spiritual death and physical death, the ultimate sentence and consequence (if one does not repent and trust in Jesus Christ to be saved from the wrath of God) will result in eternal death – namely, the permanent condition of conscious and physical bodily torment for eternity in the second death – that is, the lake of fire (cf. Matthew 25:41; 10:28; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 9:27-28; 10:26-27, 31; Revelation 20:10-15).

5.3.1.1 Spiritual Death

We teach that when Adam originally sinned against God Adam immediately suffered spiritual death. We teach that spiritual death is the death of the soul and the absence of spiritual life. We teach that spiritual death is traceable to the sin of Adam. For instance, in Genesis 2:17 the Word of God teaches the probation of man. To this effect, God gave Adam one prohibition when God commanded Adam the following, “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” The prepositional phrase, “in the day that you eat from it” signified the timing of the death that would occur. The phrase “surely you will die” signified the certainty of the death that would occur. In the Hebrew language the phrase מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת (mō-wṯ tā-mūṯ) “surely you will die” from Genesis 2:17 is grammatically an emphatic prepositive intensive cognate infinitive absolute. The expression is cognate because the Hebrew term mō-wṯ (surely) and the Hebrew term tā-mūṯ (you shall die) are from the same root word in Hebrew – namely, מוּת (muth) “to die.”[7]  

 

5.3.1.2 Physical Death

We teach that the fact that men and women die is evidence that they have received the same sentence of physical death that Adam received as a consequence of sin (cf. Genesis 3:19; Numbers 16:29; 27:3; Psalm 90:7-11; Isaiah 38:17-18; John 8:44; Romans 4:24-25; 5:12-17; 6:9-10; 8:3, 10-11; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 4:6;). We teach that at physical death the soul is separated from the physical body.

We teach that spiritual death was immediately evident after Adam originally sinned against God, because Adam did not immediately die physically, but Adam did die spiritually immediately when he disobeyed. When Adam sinned against God, fellowship with God that Adam once enjoyed was immediately broken. The paradise that Adam once enjoyed was lost because Adam was expelled from the garden of God (cf. Genesis 3:22-24). When Adam was banished from the garden of God, then physical death began its course. The first evidence that God’s Word came to pass “you will surely die” was spiritual death. After Adam was sentenced back to the dust from where he came, then the aging process began and physical death started as a process. Adam began to die physically as a consequence of his sin against God. Therefore, concerning the human race, physical death is inevitable (cf. Hebrews 9:27).  Physical death was a reality that did not happen immediately but that would definitely come later for Adam because after Adam sinned, God said in Genesis 3:19, the following:

“By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”

The Word of God reveals that Adam then died at age 930 as indicated by Genesis 5:5 (Ad Nauseum Genesis 5:5-31– concerning Adam and his posterity over and over again the phrase -“and he died” is repeated for each ancestor as the end of each man’s life with the exception of Enoch). Genesis 2:17 is about spiritual death immediately “You will surely die,” that is the certainty of spiritual separation from God. The emphasis is on the certainty of what God said would definitely happen if Adam disobeyed the command. God did not kill Adam immediately physically because if God did kill Adam immediately physically then God would have to start over to recreate man or not start over to recreate man – but then there would be no man. For God to immediately annihilate Adam physically would be for God to deny His own plan, deny His eternal decree, deny His own sovereignty, deny His own foreknowledge, deny His omniscience.

There is the sentence of physical death in Genesis 3:19. We teach that the fall of man did not catch God by surprise, but instead God decreed for this fall to happen –yet so that God is not the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty of second causes taken away, but rather established. God was not caught by surprise, but this fall was determined by God to come to pass, so that God would reveal to man His sovereign decree of the redemption of man in Jesus Christ. The moment man sinned in Genesis 3 man immediately died spiritually and was in need of the Savior. This Savior was promised as early as Genesis 3:15. Later as the sentence of God’s judgement on man – God sentenced man to a subsequent physical death which is the cessation of physical life (cf. Genesis 3:19).

We teach that physical death is evidence that men have come under the penal judgment of sin (cf. Romans 5:12, 18-19, 21).

 

5.3.1.3 Eternal Death

We teach that the final judgment of sin will result in eternal death unless there is repentance unto salvation. We teach that spiritual death eventually merges with physical death which then results in eternal death unless there was repentance unto salvation. Therefore, eternal death is essentially the culmination and completion of spiritual death. The consequence and punishment of eternal death is the permanent condition of eternal physical conscious torment and outward punishment in the second death, namely the lake of fire (cf. Matthew 25:41; 10:28; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 10:31; Revelation 2:11; 19:20; 20:6, 10, 14-15).

 

5.4 The Imputation of the Sin of Adam

We teach that Adam’s sin has been imputed to men. Impute is a legal term that means to charge to one’s account. The guilt of Adam’s sin has been charged to men and women of all ages, Jesus Christ being the only exception. 

We teach that Adam’s progeny inherited corrupted nature from him after he sinned.

We teach that men and women are guilty of Adam’s sin.

The first Adam was our representative (Vicar-federal headship) in the Garden and because of Adam’s sin, God judged the entire human race by imputing Adam’s sin to the entire scope of humanity. To impute means to charge or credit to one’s account. Imputing sin is not the same as being the author of sin. Original sin was credited to every single person’s account who has ever lived on this earth except the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the One who was to come, namely the Seed of the woman (Gen 3:15), born of a virgin and conceived by the God the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ is the Second Adam (Romans 5:15c-e, 16c, 17c-d, 18b, 19b, 20c, 21c). Jesus Christ is the Last Adam (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:45).  Also, Adam was the seminal head of the entire scope of humanity. This means that Adam, being the first man, contained the entire human race in his loins or semen.

We teach that the first Adam was the federal and representative head of the human race. When Adam acted in the Garden of Eden he acted for the human race. What is more, when Adam acted in the Garden of Eden the human race acted in him as the federal and representative head. Therefore, the human race sinned in their representative first head, Adam. The consequence of the imputation of the sin of Adam includes both spiritual and physical corruption. 

 

5.4.1 Original Sin

We teach the sound doctrine called the original sin of mankind.

We teach that original sin includes Adam’s first sin in the Garden of Eden.

We teach that original sin includes the corrupt nature that resulted from Adam’s first sin in the Garden of Eden – that original corruption that both Adam and his progeny received.

We teach that original sin includes the loss of original righteousness and holiness that Adam once possessed before the original fall of man.

We teach that original sin includes the loss of original righteousness and holiness that the human race once possessed in Adam but was lost as the result of Adam’s original sin. 

We teach that whoever denies original sin and continues in that denial is the liar, heretic and apostate (cf. 1 John 1:10; 2:18-24).[8] We teach that those who practice an ongoing denial of original sin are accusing God of lying and therefore the wrath of God abides on them (cf. 1 John 1:10; Revelation 22:15).

 

5.4.2 Total Depravity – The Inability of Fallen Man

We teach the sound doctrine called the total depravity of mankind.

We teach that the effect of original sin is the prevalent and extensive character of sin that has touched every part of man’s being.

We teach that because man is totally depraved, since the fall, man is unable to perform any spiritual good in his fallen state.

Total depravity is the sound doctrine that means man is incapable by anything of himself to come to Christ for salvation. For example, In the Gospel of John Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:44) and “. . . For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father” (Jn 6:65). God the Father has to drag sinners to come to Christ. Total depravity also means that men in their natural state will always choose sin instead of choosing to obey God. In this sense, total depravity is an inability to do anything that is pleasing to God at all pre-conversion to Christ. All in all, total depravity means that sin has corrupted the entire human nature.

The sound doctrine of total depravity is a major theme throughout the entire canonical context of the Word of God. Total depravity has to do with sin. The Word of God teaches that in Jesus Christ there is no sin and that He came to take away sin (cf. 1 John 3:5). The first sin of man is recorded in Genesis 3, where the spiritual serpent used the physical serpent to tempt the first woman to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that which God commanded Adam not to eat from lest he die (cf. Gen 2:15-17). The woman ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then gave it to her husband who was with her; he ate – and that was the first sin in the sense of the fall of humanity (cf. Gen 3:6-7).

Scripture explicitly teaches that man is totally depraved in his nature and the doctrine of original sin and total depravity are inseparably constrained to one another. For example, when Adam sinned against God in Genesis 3, God executed the sentence, and Adam’s sin was imputed to his descendants (cf. Rom 5:12). Original sin is the original depravity that was the effect of the first sin of humanity. The entire human race was in Adam’s loins, this called seminal headship (cf. Heb 7:9-10), and when Adam sinned the entire human race sinned. The only One that this did not apply to was the Lord Jesus Christ because He was born of a virgin conceived by God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in the incarnation, the Lord Jesus Christ was not born with original sin and He was not born in a state of total depravity. In the incarnation, concerning His humanity the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Person to have been born sinless post fall, and He never sinned, and in Him there is no sin. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that man’s ways are corrupt ways because man is literally born spiritually dead in his sin. The Scriptural support for original sin and total depravity is extensive. To start, concerning the OT’s content that teaches the doctrine of total depravity, in Genesis 6:5 God said that every intent of the thoughts of man’s heart is only evil continually. Moreover, in 1 Kings 8:46 and 2 Chronicles 6:36 Solomon acknowledged in his prayer to God that there is no man who does not sin. Furthermore, in Psalm 51:5 King David confessed in his prayer to God that he (i.e. David) was born in sin and even that he (i.e. David) was a sinner in the womb. (This is not to be understood as poetical license, for example an exaggeration or hyperbole, but rather as a statement of absolute truth concerning the nature of babies who enter into the world from their mother’s womb).

Likewise, Psalm 58:3 revealed the nature of babies when the text reads, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth.” Ecclesiastes 7:20 really drives deep the conviction of the doctrine of total depravity when it reads “Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.” What is more, Proverbs 20:9 teaches the doctrine of total depravity, namely that man does not have the ability to clean his life by any method of external reformation when the text reads, “Who can say, ‘I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin’?” As a final text, Jeremiah 17:9 does not present a romanticized view of man but rather teaches that man is totally depraved when the text reads, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” The doctrine of total depravity is about man’s nature post fall, and as such is a doctrine in the category of hamartiology for the purpose of answering the question, all in all what does the entire Bible reveal concerning the nature of man and sin post fall?

To this effect, it is important to appeal to the NT as well to see the continuity between the OT and the NT concerning what the Word of God has to say about the doctrine of total depravity. Consequently, the Apostle Paul quoted several OT passages in the Epistle to the Romans to argue that man is totally depraved and under the wrath of Almighty God in Romans 3:9-18. Equally, in Ephesians 2 Paul described men as being dead in trespasses and sins (cf. Eph 2:1). In Romans 3:23 Paul argues for the doctrine of total depravity when he boldly affirmed, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Therefore, the doctrine of total depravity is a Biblical doctrine and is immensely attested by Scriptural support.

We teach that the doctrine of total depravity does not mean that every single person is physically manifesting how horrendous they actually are on the inside. For example, not everyone is walking around actively involved in committing the physical act of murder or serial killing. However, Jesus said that if one is angry towards another person in their heart then their guilt before God is the same as if they actually murdered the person in which they are angry (cf. Matt 5:21-22). Therefore, in that sense there are many serial killers walking the streets of every city, town, village, and family on planet Earth. Moreover, total depravity means that it is not possible for man not to sin in their fallen condition. Furthermore, total depravity means that man cannot please God, not even in man’s best performance. To this effect, Isaiah boldly affirmed that all man’s good works stink in God’s nostrils (cf. Isa 1:13; 64:6; 65:5).[9]

In conclusion, we teach the doctrine of total depravity is a Biblical doctrine with copious amounts of Scriptural support. All in all, the doctrine of total depravity teaches that man in his natural state is unable to choose to do anything pleasing to God, unable to come to Christ for salvation without being born again monergistically, and man in his fallen state is unable not to choose sin upon every occasion. 

In conclusion, we teach that depravity, namely the sinful condition of man, infects the whole man – that is, intellect, mind, emotions, feelings, heart, soul, and will have all been affected by sin. We teach that because of depravity, man is a fallen being who has a total spiritual inability by his own volition to change his character and life and to make them conform to the standard that God requires to be right before God. Therefore, man cannot please God in the flesh in his natural state or do any spiritual good before God (cf. Romans 8:8).

 

5.5 The Nature of Sin

We teach that sin is very much a part of man’s status and nature (cf. Genesis 3; 6:5; 1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36; Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Jeremiah 17:9; John 2:25; Romans 3:9-12; 23; 5:12-15b, 16a-b, 17a-b, 18a, 19a; Ephesians 2:1-3).

We teach that in Adam’s sin man became inherently corrupt and completely incapable of choosing or performing what is acceptable to God apart from God’s divine grace in regeneration.

We teach that in Adam man is lost and does not have the ability to regenerate or rescue himself to restore himself to man’s original state before the fall, in other words, we teach that man is total incapable and unable to save himself and fix his sinful condition.  

We teach that all men were in Adam and as such the sin nature (i.e. a nature corrupted by Adam’s sin) has been transmitted to all men of all ages, Jesus Christ being the only exception.

We teach that all men are sinners by nature and by willful choice (c.f. Psalm 14:1-3; Jeremiah 17:9; 1 Peter 1:18-19).

We teach that all men are by nature children of wrath because of man’s inherited sin nature from Adam (cf. Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 3:23; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 2:14; 1 Timothy 2:13-14).

 

5.5.1 The Indwelling of Sin

We teach that sin that indwells the human body now is an intruder in the human because its origin is traceable to the original sin of Adam. We teach that since the fall, the sin principle has been indwelling man (cf. Romans 5:12; 7:23). Human nature in its original creation did not have the sin principle dwelling within it. For Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was created in holiness and righteousness (cf. Genesis 1:31; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). Adam was originally created in holiness. Adam was originally created in perfection and therefore Adam was not guilty of sin until sin was first committed by him. Adam was created in the image of God and that is the original reality of essential humanity. Sin then is an intruder. Sin is not part of original human nature by constitution for if it was then God cannot judge us for our sins. However, since the fall, sin has now become a necessary part of human nature.

We teach that indwelling sin is unbelief, unrighteousness and lawlessness and produces the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life (cf. 1 John 2:15-16).

We teach that the lust of the flesh is essentially unbelief because it expresses trust in the flesh instead of trust in God (cf. Genesis 3:6; Luke 4:3; John 16:9).

We teach that the lust of the eyes is essentially unrighteousness because it glorifies the world system and expresses expectation and optimism in the achievements, commandments and teachings of men concerning self-made religion but does not look to the Lord Jesus Christ and does not place hope in Him (cf. Genesis 3:6; Luke 4:5-7; John 16:10; Colossians 2:16-23).

We teach that the boastful pride of life is essentially lawlessness because it focuses on self-preservation to the expense of everything and does not love God or one’s neighbor. The boastful pride of life is thinking one is wiser than God while living and dying for one’s own personal achievement and material goals (Genesis 3:6; Luke 4:9-11; John 16:11; James 3:13-16).

The opposite of faith, hope (cf. 1 John 3:1-3) and love (cf. 1 John 4:21; 5:1-3) is unbelief (cf. John 16:9), unrighteousness (cf. 1 John 5:17), and lawlessness (cf. 1 John 3:4).

We teach that this indwelling sin principle is still a reality in the Christian experience and life except that the Christian has the ability to mortify sin and not practice sin as a habitual ongoing lifestyle (cf. Romans 7:14-25).

We teach that the residual effects of sin of the indwelling sin principle still remain with the Christian until physical death (cf. Romans 7:17, 18, 20, 24; 1 John 1:8, 10; 2:1-2).[10]

 

5.5.2 The Sin Nature – The Sinful Flesh – The Old-Self

We teach that the sin nature is the depravity within man and produces the deeds of the flesh (cf. Galatians 5:19-21; Romans 2:8; 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 18; 2 Corinthians 12:20-21; James 3:14; Revelation 21:8).

We teach that the meaning that the Apostle Paul conveyed in Romans 7:14-25 was his struggle against sin as a believer, and therefore, the universality of this truth applies to all believers who struggle against sin throughout their entire Christian experience and life before the grave.[11]    

We teach that the Christian after conversion still has to put to death the deeds of the sinful flesh and put aside the old self (cf. Romans 8:13; Ephesians 4:14-32; Colossians 3:5-11).

We teach that the distinction between genuine believers versus unbelievers is that genuine believers do not practice sin as an ongoing habitual lifestyle (cf. 1 John 1:6; 3:6, 9; 5:18). Unbelievers practice sin as an ongoing habitual lifestyle (cf. Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John 3:8, 10; Revelation 22:15).[12]  

 

5.5.3 Besetting Sin

We teach that the Greek term found in Hebrews 12:1 εὐπερίστατος (euperistatos) from the phrase τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν (the well-all-around-planted sin) has the sense to mean ‘well-planted all-around’ because it is comprised of the Greek terms eú, ‘well’; +  perí, ‘all-around’; together with hístēmi, ‘stand’ or ‘planted’. Therefore, The Greek term εὐπερίστατος (euperistatos), which incidentally is a hapax legomenon (i.e. one occurrence – e.g. a term only found once in a body of literature) properly described what is encompassing all around that easily entangles – thus, it denotes a serious hindrance that is purposed to keep someone down who desperately needs to get up and move forward.

The Greek term εὐπερίστατος (euperistatos) found in Hebrews 12:1 has been translated “hinders” (NIV); “easily trips us up” (NLT); “clings so closely” (ESV); “easily entangles” (NASB 1995); “easily ensnares (HCSB); “easily beset” (KJV).

We teach that the Greek term found in Hebrews 12:1 εὐπερίστατος (euperistatos) from the phrase τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν (the well-all-around-planted sin) is not to be understood as the ongoing practice of sin because it is not a verb or participle but instead an adjective in the attributive position – therefore, it is describing a particular attribute of the sin. Therefore, it is not to be understood as “a professed Christian in the church, who has a continuing ‘besetting sin’, such as lust, due to the ongoing nature of that sin.”  We teach that the distinction between genuine believers versus unbelievers is that genuine believers do not practice sin as an ongoing habitual lifestyle (cf. 1 John 1:6; 3:6, 9; 5:18). Unbelievers practice sin as an ongoing habitual lifestyle (cf. Galatians 5:19-21; 1 John 3:8, 10; Revelation 22:15).

What is the sin that is mentioned in Hebrews 12:1 identified as τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν (the well-all-around-planted sin)?

We teach that because of the context of Hebrews chapter 11 and 12 this particular sin is unbelief because chapter 11 concerns the definition and examples of faith (i.e. the great cloud of witnesses cf. Hebrews 12:1) and unbelief is the opposite of faith. Therefore, the sin which is “the well-all-around-planted sin” is the sin of unbelief. It is unbelief that easily ensnares, entangles and weighs a person down to keep them from moving forward. If one does not believe the Word of God in the circumstance of life but instead expresses unbelief then one will be hindered from running the race of faith (cf. Hebrews 10:36).

The high priest from the Mosaic Covenant mentioned in Hebrews 5:2 was surrounded with weakness -  that is, the sins of unbelief of himself and the people versus being surrounded by the cloud of witnesses of faith. The Greek term περίκειμαι (surrounding) in Hebrews 5:2 is used negatively that the high priest from the Mosaic Covenant was surrounded by weakness, yet the same Greek word was used positively in Hebrews 12:1 – namely, περίκειμαι (surrounding) that the Christian now has the benefit of being surrounded by a cloud of witnesses of faith (cf. Hebrews 11:40; 12:1; 1 Peter 1:12).

 

5.5.4 Sin unto Death

We teach that ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον (sin unto death) mentioned in 1 John 5:16-17 is in the context of a Christian who is remaining in unrepentant sin and therefore is disciplined by God with physical death (cf.1 Corinthians 11:28-32). In other words, sin unto death in the context of 1 John 5:16-17 is sin that could be any unconfessed sin that brings about the discipline of the Lord to determine the end of a believer’s physical life. The Greek term ἀδελφός (brother) in the context of 1 John is a fellow Christian and the present tense of the participle (sinning from the phrase “if anyone should see the brother of him sinning sin not unto death”) denotes the kind of action that is durative or ongoing. The discipline of physical death in the case of sin unto death is to make the distinction between those who practice sin as an ongoing lifestyle that belong to the unbelieving world (cf. 1 John 3:6, 8-10, 15) versus those who are genuine believers but who find themselves fallen into the situation of unrepentant disobedience. This is the case if God does not answer the prayer of the Christian who is praying for his brother in the case of when he sees his brother sinning sin. We teach the reason for such discipline – that is, physical death is due to the Lord’s commitment to the purity of His church and the reality that prayer, genuine confession of sin and repentance should ever be before the individual Christian and the Church corporately (cf. 1 John 2:1-2; Revelation 2:5; 16, 22-23; 3:3; 19).

We teach that all sin is extremely dangerous to the Christian life and experience. Even though God does not immediately punish every sin with physical death, sin is an extremely serious matter to God because the Apostle John wrote, “all unrighteousness is sin and there is sin not unto death” (1 John 5:17). The Christian likewise must take sin seriously living a life of genuine confession of sin and repentance and sin must be guarded against (cf. 1 John 1:8-9; 3:9; 5:18). Both cases – that is, granting life to those sinning sin not unto death or disciplining with physical death as the inevitable result of those who sin unto death, reveal the mercy of God. It is because of the loving chastisement of God the child born of Him will not be condemned along with the world (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:32; Hebrews 12:7-11; 1 John 5:4-12, 17-19).

We teach that persistent sin in the life of a believer cannot continue for a lifetime because it will bring one to the discipline of the Lord.

We DO NOT teach that the Christian can lose their salvation – therefore, sin unto death is not spiritual death in the sense of loss of salvation. We DO NOT teach that ‘sin unto death’ means that the eternal spiritual life the Christian has from once having been born of God (cf. 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:4, 18) can ever or has been lost.

We DO NOT teach that the sin unto death in the context of 1 John is that of a non-Christian leading to eternal death in the sense of the unpardonable sin committed by the Pharisees against the Lord Jesus Christ during the personal eyewitness exposure to the Lord Jesus Christ in the days of His first advent (cf. Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3; Luke 11:14-28).[13] A Christian brother cannot be guilty of eternal sin.

The anarthrous noun ἁμαρτία ‘sin’ (i.e. in the case of 1 John 5:16 does not have the definite article) indicates that sin unto death is not one particular sin, but any sin that remains unrepentant for a time that warrants the severe chastisement of physical death. We teach that the contrast between the phrases “sinning sin not unto death” versus “sin unto death” reveals that God does not judge believers immediately with physical death in every circumstance that they sin. 

We DO NOT teach the romanist doctrine of “venial” and “mortal” sins. We DO NOT teach the romanist penitential system of their sacrament of penance. 

We DO NOT teach that sin unto death is a reference to apostasy – namely, that an individual who once came to know Christ in the past has now apostatized from the faith.

The main context of 1 John is the answer to intercessory prayer versus the inevitable result of physical death in which intercession is no longer the case in accordance with the will of God for the individual who commits sin unto death (cf. 1 John 5:14-17).

 

5.6 Against Heresies

We DO NOT teach the following heresies because they deny the sinfulness of sin: Manichaean dualism (sin is eternal); Free-will; Tabula rasa; Pelagianism; Semi-pelagianism; Romanist classification of venial and mortal sins; Sensuousness as the complete definition of sin; Selfishness or self-love as the complete definition of sin; Ignorance as the complete definition of sin; Situational ethics theory.

 

5.6.1 Manichaean Dualism – The False Teaching Claiming Sin is Eternal

We DO NOT teach that sin is eternal.

We DO NOT teach the eternality of evil.

We DO NOT teach that evil has existed from the very beginning of things, just as good has existed from the beginning; and that all life is characterized by such a mixture. To suggest that sin and evil is eternal is the denial that sin or evil had a beginning.

Sin is not eternal. Sin could not have been created by God. Sin had a point of origin and sin will have a distinct point of cessation (i.e. end). Sin’s origin occurred in the angelic realm (see above section 5.2.2 The Origin of Sin in the Angelic Realm). Sin’s cessation will happen at the end when the devil and his angels are put in the lake of fire, that is the eternal fire prepared for them (cf. Matthew 25:41), as well as those of mankind whose names were not written in the book of life of the Lamb having been slain from the foundation of the world (cf. Revelation 18:3; Revelation 20:15). Everyone will spend eternity in one of two places. The elect will spend eternity with Christ in Heaven because He eternally propitiated God’s wrath towards their sin when He died in their place on the cross, Christ paying the debt they owed for their sin in penal-substitution and Him being raised from the dead for their justification. The reprobate will spend eternity in Hell fully exhausting God’s wrath toward their sin and paying God back for their sin forever. No one will be sinning in Hell but rather those there will be paying God back for their sin. Therefore, sin is either destroyed and comes to an end in the second death by God or sin was destroyed by the death of Christ (God in human flesh) on the cross and His resurrection from the dead.

We DO NOT teach dualism. Dualism is the heresy that suggests that good and evil are coeternal opposites, either originating in a common first principle, or eternally existing as opposite principles. Concerning the nature of God, we refute the doctrine of the ancient Manichaeans’ dualism because sin did not preserve but vitiated the good nature of the original creation and therefore sin is not from God; but rather sin is from the will of those sinning.

God is sovereign over evil and uses it to accomplish His purposes. Concerning the way things are post-fall, it was God who had decreed calamity (cf. Isaiah 45:7). However, there is a distinction between moral evil and what man calls physical evil (e.g. wars, famines, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) Post-fall, calamity is the consequence for moral evil. Nevertheless, God uses evil to accomplish His purposes for good as is the case in Gen 50:20 where Joseph told his brothers who wickedly sold him into slavery the following; “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive”.

God will certainly judge sin and He cannot judge sin righteously if He is the author of sin because in Proverbs 17:15 it reads, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.”[14]

 

5.6.2 The Freedom of the Will - - Free-Will 

We DO NOT teach ‘free-will.’ Freedom of the will or ‘free-will’ is the heresy that suggests that man in his natural fallen state has the ability to change his character by an act of volition.

We teach that man in his natural fallen state does not have the ability to change his character by an act of volition.

Those that ascribe salvation to the free will of man know nothing of the grace of God, know nothing of Jesus Christ and know nothing of the nature and extent of the atonement.

We teach that man in his fallen state has the freedom to go to hell but not the free-will to go to heaven.

We teach that man in his fallen state is unwilling to come to Jesus Christ for salvation (cf. John 5:40).

We teach that God must release the will from the bondage of sin to enable a person to come to Jesus Christ for salvation (cf. John 6:44). 

 

5.6.2.1 The Inclination, Volitions and the Actions of the Human Will

We teach that the basic inclination of man’s inmost being produces the volitions of said man and the volitions of said man produce the actions of that man.

We teach the will is determined by the motives of the soul. We teach that understanding and appetency (a longing or desire; a natural tendency or affinity) that is, desires, are a decision on the basis of a person’s character. Therefore, men make decisions because of something deeper within them – thus, the human will is a secondary agency.

 

5.6.2.2 The Conditions of the Will

Those who teach ‘free-will’ do not understand the conditions of the will. The following is the orthodox formula throughout church history concerning the conditions of the will:

 

I.               non passé picara -- Not able to sin

We teach that non passé picara, expresses the will of God – that is, we teach that God is not able to sin. We teach that Jesus Christ is not able to sin. We teach that God’s will is absolutely certain but He cannot sin. We teach that God is a free agent and that means that God exercises the power to decide according to His character. We also teach that there is nothing more certain than that God will not sin. We teach that God has not sinned. We teach that God will not sin. We teach that God will never sin. We teach that free agency means there is nothing more certain as the fact that God will always do what is right because He is a free agent who acts only according to His perfect character. We teach that absolute certainty is harmonious with free agency. We teach that the free agency of God does not contradict the foreknowledge, sovereignty, or providence of God. We teach with absolute certainty that God is not able to sin. 

 

II.             passé non picara -- Able not to sin

We teach that the condition of the angelic cherubim being, who would later be identified as Satan, the devil, the serpent of old and the red dragon, before he fell was in a condition originally of able not to sin but he could. Likewise, Adam was originally in the condition of able not to sin but he could. However, in both cases, they both sinned against God. However, in both cases as originally created by God, had the ability not to sin, but also the ability to sin.

 

III.           passé picara - - The ability to sin

We teach that humanity in creation had the ability to sin. We teach that fallen humanity has the ability to sin.

 

IV.           non passé non picara -- Not able not to sin

We teach that the condition of human will after the fall has the inability not to sin. We teach that man in his fallen nature is not able not to sin.

We DO NOT teach prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is the theory and false teaching that God with the cooperation of man gives an assisting grace which helps a person to believe before regeneration. In other words, it is the theory that faith precedes regeneration as God gives enabling grace which helps a person believe and then God regenerates the believer.

 

5.6.3 Tabula Rasa

We DO NOT teach the pop-psychological view called tabula rasa or ‘blank slate’ because this theory denies original sin and the sinfulness of sin.

Tabula rasa or ‘blank slate’ is the world’s doctrine of human nature and argues that humans are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Tabula rasa suggests that bad behavior is based more on one's social environment instead of an ongoing propensity towards sin. The world's denial of original sin then influences how the world attempts to rehabilitate and socially reform individuals. One can argue that these attempts will always fail to produce any real change in a person's inner being. Instead, the world's way of rehabilitation will only create a deeper sense of deception and alienation from God. The fifth century heretic Pelagius had this same sort of thinking. Pelagius thought that Adam and Eve's sin against God only affected them and the first humans were just a bad example of how not to live. Furthermore, Pelagius believed that all human beings are born with a blank slate (without Adam' original sin imputed to their account) and have the ability not to sin. Therefore, the modern way of thinking about human nature tabula rasa is very much influenced by Pelagian thought. Furthermore, the way of thinking (tabula rasa) is the opposite of what the Bible teaches. For example, Romans 5:12 reads, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" and 1 Corinthians 15:21 reads, "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." We teach that Jesus Christ is the only way for anyone to be transformed or changed. If human thinking did not need to be transformed then why did Paul write, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind" in Romans 12:2? We teach that any opinion or way of thought that is contrary to and against what God has said in His word, is the mind of sin. We teach that human nature cannot be altered by social reforms or education. It must be transformed by a supernatural work of the Triune God in regeneration.

Psychology is not a safe haven for refuge to explain the behavior of people. Psychology is taught in secular public grade schools as well as universities as an exact science. However, psychology is not science. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders[15] is the world’s manual to label all abnormal human activity. However, original sin is not accurately defined in this manual. The world’s official study of human behavior in ‘psychology’ cannot accurately define the nature of man.

Tabula rasa is an expression of unbelief because it is a system that blames God. After Adam sinned against God Adam blamed God and his environment when he said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate” (Genesis 3:12). When God charges man with the guilt of committing sin then man imagines all kinds of reasons for why he should be excused for his disobedience. Men blame their disobedience on the excuse that they were born with sinful passions, therefore there is nothing they can do about it and therefore they should be excused. Then men go as far to argue that they were made that way and blame God. Men blame their disobedience on their heredity, or their environment in which they were raised. Men blame their parents. Pyschologists, sociologists and secular anthropologists foster these false accusations against God through the template of bio-psycho-social influence theory and imaginary constitutional theories like tabula rasa.

 

5.6.4 Pelagianism

We DO NOT teach Pelagianism. Pelagianism is the false teaching that suggests that original sin did not affect human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection. This heresy was named after the heretic Pelagius (c. 355 – c. 420 AD), an ascetic and philosopher from the British Isles, who taught that it was unjust to punish one person for the sins of another; therefore, infants are born blameless.

 

5.6.5 Semi-Pelagianism

We DO NOT teach Semi-pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism is the false teaching that suggests God left an ‘island of righteousness’ in each and every person of the human race and from that “island of righteousness” everyone can choose to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation before regeneration. Therefore, Semi-pelagianism denies the doctrine of total depravity and the doctrine of original sin. Semi-pelagianism holds to prevenient grace, that individuals can accept Jesus Christ apart from being born again. Semi-Pelagianism undermines the essential role of God's grace in salvation. Semi-pelagianism holds to synergism, the idea that human freedom and divine grace work together for salvation in the sense that faith precedes regeneration.

 

5.6.6 Romanist Classification of Mortal and Venial Sins

We DO NOT teach the romanist classification and distinction of ‘mortal’ and ‘venial’ sins. According to romanists, ‘mortal’ sin is a grave sin committed with full knowledge and consent. According to romanists, those who die in the state of ‘mortal’ sin descend into hell. According to romanists, ‘venial’ sin is sin that merits only temporal punishment and does not deprive the sinner of grace, friendship with God or eternal happiness. Romanists list seven ‘mortal’ sins: superbia (pride), avaritia (greed), luxuria (lust), ira (wrath), gula (gluttony), invidia (envy), acedia (traegheit, sloth), and then devise a penitential system that is to be applied by the church, in which the priests measure out the satisfaction operis (i.e. the means of avoiding punishment in purgatory after the sin itself had been remitted by sacramental absolution) in their sacrament of penance.

We teach the biblical classification of sins (e.g. Proverbs 6:16-19; Galatians 5:19-21; Colossians 3:5-9; James 3:14-16).

 

5.6.7 Sensuousness as the Complete Definition of Sin

We DO NOT teach that sensuousness is the complete definition of sin. Lust is sin, but sensuousness by itself is not the complete definition of sin. Those who teach that sensuousness is the complete definition of sin suggest that all sin is connected with manifestation of the flesh in the physical body and through asceticism one can stifle the sin principle within them.

2 Corinthians 7:1 teaches that there is defilement of both flesh and spirit. Therefore, there are sins that are in the category of sensuousness but also there are sins in the category of attitude (cf. Galatians 5:19-21). Therefore, sensuousness is not the complete definition of sin because sins of pride, malice, envy, selfish ambition and enmity are not offenses of sensuousness.

Those who teach that sensuousness is the complete definition of sin are deceived and capitulate towards legalism, asceticism, self-abasement and severe treatment to the body which have no value against fleshly indulgences (cf. Colossians 2:16-23).

Those who teach that sensuousness is the complete definition of sin suggest that if one weakens the passions of the body then one will become purer. Asceticism does not help in any way to stifle fleshly passions. Legalists suggest that the more one can blunt the passions of the flesh then the purer one can be. However, such legalism and self-abasement cannot weaken sinful desires in any way. In fact, if one follows such false teaching one becomes even more sinful because it nourishes self-righteousness and pride.

 

5.6.8 Selfishness or Self-Love as the Complete Definition of Sin

We DO NOT teach that selfishness and self-love is the complete definition of sin. Selfishness certainly is sin but not a complete definition of sin. Selfishness and self-love are products of the essential character of sin.

 

5.6.9 Ignorance as the Complete Definition of Sin

We DO NOT teach that the complete definition of sin is ignorance of the purposes of God.

We DO NOT teach that the reason man is a sinner is because he is merely finite and ignorant.

We teach that there are sins of commission (committed with knowledge) and sins of omission (committed in ignorance). Guilt can be determined according to the amount of exposure to the truth of God’s word and information that one has retained. We teach that there are degrees of punishment for those who have not repented unto salvation and the principle of greater guilt will be applied to those who have been exposed to a greater degree of knowledge and exposure to the Word of God, – but yet refuse to repent (cf. Matthew 10:15; 11:20-24; Luke 12:47-48; 23:34; John 19:11; Romans 1:32; 2:12; 1 Timothy 1:13-16).   

We teach that ignorance is not innocence. The Bible teaches in 1 John 3:4 that sin is lawlessness – “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.” Therefore, since sin is the transgression of the law of God it is not essentially ignorance (cf. Romans 1:18-3:20).

 

5.6.10 Situational Ethics Theory

We DO NOT teach situational ethics theory, namely the theory that the greatest sin is when one is not living for the end goal of the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. In other words, the greatest sin according to situational ethics theory is not pursuing happiness or seeking the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people as the goal in life. Situational ethics theory teaches that people determine what is right and wrong and that conclusion is dictated by the circumstances in which people find themselves. Situational ethics theory maintains that it is necessary for one to lie, or gossip, or slander, or abandon, or even murder, or to commit adultery, or sexual immorality because such sins are expedient to pursue happiness as the ultimate goal in the situation in which one finds oneself. Situational ethics theory maintains that people should do these things, because happiness and the practice of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people is the greater goal, the greater good and the great guiding principle of life.

Scripture against utilitarianism and situational ethics:

We DO NOT teach utilitarianism, that is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. Utilitarianism is the philosophy of men that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or whatever pragmatic human philosophy that men compete over to define as “the greater good” to the expense of the suffering of others and the depreciation of the value of the image of God in man. 

We DO NOT teach utilitarianism because our Lord Jesus Christ said, “'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did it to Me” Matthew 25:40 (cf. Proverbs 14:31; 19:17; Matthew 10:31, 42; 18:5, 6, 10; 25:45; Mark 10:18; 1 Corinthians 12:26; Ephesians 5:30; 1 Timothy 5:21; James 1:9-10; 2:1-7; 3:17-18).

 

 


[1] Sin involves man’s doctrine and his behavior – that is, man’s belief and behavior. The doctrine of hamartiology includes these major categories – the origin of sin, the nature of sin, the sin of Adam, and the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race. When Adam sinned the human race sinned as well in Adam. Therefore, men and women are born into this world spiritually dead in sin (cf. Ephesians 2:1-3). Fallen man is in bondage to sin. Man still has the faculty of choosing, from his will, but in his fallen state he now is free only to sin, because his desires are inclined only toward sin and away from God. Fallen man has what is called “the inability not to sin.”

[2] Both terms “sin” and “lawlessness” in 1 John 3:4 are nouns and have definite articles. The eimi Greek “to be” verb is between the two nouns. In 1 John 3:4 the eimi form is present indicative 3rd person singular and is correctly translated into English “it is,” respectively.  Therefore, in 1 John 3:4 we are given the biblical definition of sin.

[3] There are three major biblical etymological definitions concerning sin. The first one is the Greek term hamartia from where we get the term hamartiology (the study of sin). Hamartia is to be understood correctly as the sense of “missing the mark.” In the ethical sense it means to be guilty of falling short of God’s standard of righteousness – hence missing the mark. This is the term found here for sin in verse 4 – namely, hamartia. The second Greek term for sin is anomia lit. ‘lawlessness’. The Apostle John defined sin as lawlessness. The term anomia has an alpha privative inseparably attached to the term nómos, ‘law’– nómos by itself means law but with the alpha privative as the prefix a + nómos means ‘without law’ because the alpha privative negates the term in which it is inseparably attached. The third Greek term for sin “unrighteousness” is from a Greek term found in the NT – namely, adikia. The term adikia has an alpha privative inseparably attached to the term dikia – dikia by itself means righteousness but with the alpha privative as the prefix a + dikia means without righteousness because the alpha privative negates the term in which it is inseparably attached. Therefore, the sense of the meaning is that sin is defined as “without righteousness” or “unrighteousness.” This term adikia is also found in 1 John 5:17 – “all unrighteousness is sin.”

[4] Did the Apostle John want his readers to merely understand sin in the sense of violating or missing the mark of obedience to the Mosaic Law? Is that the sense from 1 John 3:4, merely violating the Ten Commandments? It is certainly sin and missing the mark to break the Ten Commandments, and breaking the Ten Commandments certainly would be classified as lawlessness. However, the Apostle John was getting at something even more specific in 1 John 3:4 and that is the very nature of sin. In other words, to sin is to practice lawlessness. This is both general and specific. This is the very fundamental definition of sin. John is not just simply saying to practice sin is to disobey the Mosaic Law; this is much more comprehensive. For instance, the Apostle Paul explains in Romans 5:13 that sin was in the world before the Law was given. Therefore, this definition has to do with something that is very fundamental concerning man’s fallen nature, traceable to the sin of Adam in Genesis 3. That is, man’s attitude of rebellion against what is good – an attitude of rebellion against the Word of God. The very core nature of sin is unbelief. The reason why man is lawless, the reason man is rebellious against God’s authority, and the reason a person is rebellious to the Word of God is that man in his fallen state does not believe the Word of God. Man expresses himself in unbelief when he lies to himself and says – “God is not really going to do what He said.” In unbelief, a person is living as if they do not really believe that there are real consequences for their actions. Then when unbelief expresses itself in the rebellious attitude – then there is the practice of lawlessness.  Unbelief leads to rebellion which results in immorality – one expressing themselves with the deeds of the flesh (cf. Galatians 5:19-21). The deeds of the flesh proceed out of unbelief which produces an attitude of rebellion. The Apostle Paul wrote “and anything that is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). Therefore, the very essence of sin and the very nature of sin is unbelief – namely, not believing God, not believing God’s Word and therefore rejecting God’s authority. Unbelief was the common denominator to the temptation in the Garden of Eden. The spiritual serpent used the physical serpent to tempt the woman with the question of unbelief, “indeed, has God said?” (Genesis 3:1). The evil figure that appeared in the garden through the physical serpent challenged the very authority and veracity of God. Sin is unbelief in God’s Word.

[5] In the overall context of Isa 14, it referred to a human king of Babylon upon whom God pronounced judgment. Within the taunt against Babylon, God moved from the physical ruler of Babylon to the spiritual ruler of Babylon who was influencing the human ruler. Likewise, in Ezekiel God pronounced judgment on the physical king of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:1-10) as well as the spiritual ruler who was influencing the human king of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:12-19). Some might argue that because of the prophetic literary genre of Isaiah and Ezekiel that the language of “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning” (Isa 14:12a-b) and “You were in Eden, the garden of God . . . You were the anointed cherub who covers” (Ezekiel 28:13 a-b; 14a) was figurative. However, in Gen 3:14-15 God pronounced judgment on the physical serpent first (v. 14) and then on the spiritual serpent who influenced the physical serpent (v. 15). All three of these examples are oracles of judgment delivered from God on an unrighteous fallen angelic being.

[6] The unrighteous fallen angelic being judged in Gen 3:15; Isa 14:12-15; and Ezekiel 28:12-19 is identified as Satan the devil. Revelation 12 records the history of the dragon in which Satan is identified as follows; “And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.” The description of Satan as a serpent is a direct reference to Gen 3:15. The angels who fell with the devil fell because they joined with him in his rebellion. Ezekiel 28:16 explains the devil’s ability of persuasion when the text explains that, “By the abundance of your trade You were internally filled with violence, And you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane From the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the stones of fire.” This referred to the origin of sin, namely that the cherub who was originally blameless (cf. Ezekiel 28:15) wanted to make himself like the Most High (Isa 14:14b). Morally, he turned from righteousness to unrighteousness by volition of his will (cf. Ezekiel 28:15). Satan wanted to dethrone God and when he attempted to do so he led one third of the angels to fall (cf. Rev 12:4).

[7] God put the first man Adam on probation. God warned Adam not to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (cf. Genesis 2:17).  In Hebrew grammatical the construction (mō-wṯ tā-mūṯ) “surely you will die” is an emphatic, prepositive, intensive, cognate, infinitive absolute, from the phrase “for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” The infinitive absolute construction is found many times in the OT. When the infinitive absolute occurs before a cognate (that is words with the same root) and before a cognate finite verb, it emphasized or strengthened the force of the verb. The emphatic, prepositive, intensive, cognate infinitive absolute construction conveys one idea, not two. “Surely you will die” in Hebrew mō-wṯ tā-mūṯ is not to be interpreted “dying you will die.” “God told Adam that if he ate of the tree he would surely die (cf. 2:17). This meant spiritual death immediately (e.g. the temporal marker “in the day” signified the timing of the consequence – that is, the timing of the eating violation in the context demands immediacy). The Hebrew conjunction כִּי (ki) translated ‘for’ is causal connecting the cause of the previous thought “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat.” The preposition phrase “in the day” referred to a definite immediate day not some undefined distant event in the future. God did not exaggerate but intended the certainty of immediate death – that is, spiritual death. Therefore, Genesis 2:17 is signifying one death, that is spiritual death, the sense is not “dying you will die” to signify two deaths, but instead “surely you will die” – signifying one death – that is, spiritual death not physical death.  Spiritual death is spiritual separation from God. We teach that physical death is one of the consequences of Adam’s sin because sin brings forth death (cf. Romans 6:23; James 1:15). We teach that physical death is a consequence of Adam’s sin because God said, “By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.” Genesis 3:19.

However, Genesis 2:17 did not indicate two deaths, but instead one death – that is, spiritual death. Genesis 3:19 did not indicate two deaths, but instead one death – that is, physical death.

[8] The doctrine of original sin is the testimony of the Triune God concerning mankind in his fallen condition. If one denies this fundamental Christian doctrine in the study of hamartiology then one is not believing the testimony of the Triune God.

[9] We teach that it is possible for unbelieving neighbors to appear externally “nice.” In fact, unbelieving neighbors can even appear to be “nicer” than some truly born again Christians. However, this does not contradict the doctrine of total depravity. First of all, the born again Christian has been awoken to their depravity, and as such the born again Christian’s greatest burden is the indwelling residual effects of sin that still remain in the born again Christian, which will not be completely eradicated until the born again Christian falls asleep (i.e. physical death) and goes to be with the Lord into a state of glorification. The “nice” unbelieving neighbor has never been awoken to his or her sin, therefore they have lost their sense of sin and act like “everything is awesome.” In fact, the “nice” unbelieving neighbor dies happily not knowing that they are happily going to hell, because “there is no ban in their death, they are not troubled as other men, nor are they plagued like other men” (cf. Psalm 73:4-5). However, the Christian is “. . . stricken all day long and chastened every morning” (Psalm 73:14), and the Christian is deeply in sorrow when they sin. But the Christian does have joy in the Lord and thanksgiving in the Lord because He has saved the Christian from their sins and the impending judgment of the imminent wrath of God toward sinners (cf. Rom 7:25). Unfortunately, there are some unbelievers who appear “nicer” than some Christians on the outside, but the Bible strongly teaches that if a person is not in Christ and they externally appear “nice” or “better” they have never been stirred to have a sense of sin and their belief and behavior has layers and layers of total depravity. Furthermore, the most pious of people with external good works, unless it is from inward motives of the fruit of God the Holy Spirit, then it is always an attempt to base one’s relationship with God by one’s own performance as a means of justification before God and the expectation of God rewarding that person as if God owed them for their contribution to the Universe.  If a person is an unbeliever then God the Holy Spirit has not salvifically taken residence in them, and all their so-called “niceness” is rendered obsolete and originally deceptive. There is no such thing as good intentions when the doctrine of total depravity is on the table for discussion concerning man post-fall pre-conversion. Really ‘nice’ unbelieving neighbors are unable to be kind.  

[10] The Greek term οἰκέω (oikeó) has the sense to mean to indwell and inhabit (cf. Romans 7:17, 18, 20).

[11] Throughout Romans 7:14-25 the Apostle Paul used the present tense which is to be understood as his present situation when he wrote the epistle to the Romans [e.g. ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι (I however fleshly am)].

[12] We agree with John MacArthur in his commentary on 1 John 3 in the section entitled “the Christian’s incompatibility with sin.” For instance, MacArthur rightly explained the Christian’s incompatibility with sin when he wrote, “Everyone who habitually practices sin is living in an ongoing condition of lawlessness. . . . Throughout its history the true church has always maintained that Scripture clearly sets forth certain basic standards of belief and behavior as necessary marks of genuine saving faith. An affirmation and acceptance of the biblical gospel, and a life that is characteristic by a worthy walk, have rightly been seen as accurate indicators of the work of the Trinity on a person’s heart. And when such fruit is absent in an individual’s life, the church has appropriately called into question his or her profession of faith. The truly penitent heart resolves to obey God’s law (1 Thess 2:13), deny fleshly lusts (Romans 13:14; 2 Timothy 2:22; 1 Peter 1:14), resist the world’s allurements (Titus 2:12), and willingly submit to the sovereign lordship of Jesus Christ in all things (Luke 6:46). MacArthur, John. The Macarthur New Testament Commentary, 1-3 John (Moody Publishers, 2007), 119-20.

[13] The unpardonable sin was a definite sin related to a historical situation, when the Lord Jesus Christ was on Earth during His first advent. After Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead, He now possesses a physical glorified body, but during His first advent He possessed the physical body that was given Him in His birth, therefore, the situation is never parallel ever after, and that's why we never have a reference to the unpardonable sin in the epistles.

[14] Therefore, man has a great dilemma, namely this – how can wicked man be saved from the wrath of God? The answer to that question and the solution to the problem of evil is found at the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. The crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ was the most heinous act of injustice in the history of the world. Concerning Jesus Christ, the only One who lived an innocent sinless life, Peter said to the Jews in Acts “you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:23c). Yet the first part of the same verse reads, “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” (Acts 2:23a-b). God sent His Son Jesus Christ to the cross but He holds the lawless men responsible for His murder. In so doing, God maintained and demonstrated His righteousness (Romans 3:25) and maintained and demonstrated His love (Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10) when Jesus satisfied God’s wrath toward sin in vicarious penal-substitution for everyone who would believe in Christ for eternal life (i.e. the elect). It is by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, not works that man is saved from the wrath of God towards sin. God commands men to turn away from sin (Proverbs 3:7) but in no way is God the author of sin.

[15] Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. American Psychiatric Assoc., 2010.