Cain and Abel

Cain.

Old Testament. (Cain is mentioned in Genesis 4)

• He is the first-mentioned child of Adam & Eve. Genesis 4:1
• He was a tiller of the ground. Genesis 4:2
• He brought of the fruit of the ground as an offering. Genesis 4:3
• His offering was not respected by God. Genesis 4:5a
• He became angry with God and his brother. Genesis 4:5b ff.
• He killed Abel, his brother. Genesis 4:8ff.
• He was punished by God. Genesis 4:9ff.
• He took a wife and had children. Genesis 4:16ff.

New Testament. (Cain is mentioned 3 times in the NT)

• Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
• 1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
• Jude 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
• Cain’s offering was not by faith. Hebrews 11:4
• He followed the wicked one, his spiritual father. 1 John 3:12
• His works were evil. 1 John 3:12 (He did not become evil because he slew his brother, but he slew his brother because he was evil.)
• He had his own way. Jude 1:11 (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25)

Abel.

Old Testament. (Abel is mentioned in Genesis 4)

• He is the second-mentioned child of Adam & Eve. Genesis 4:2
• He was a keeper of sheep. Genesis 4:2
• He brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof, as an offering. Genesis 4:4a
• His offering was respected by God. Genesis 4:4b
• His brother talked to him. Genesis 4:8a
• He was killed by his brother, Cain. Genesis 4:8b
• His blood cried for retribution. Genesis 4:10-11
• He was “replaced” by his brother Seth. Genesis 4:25

New Testament. (Abel is mentioned 4 times in the NT)

• He is called righteous (his blood requires retribution). Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51
• His offering was by faith. Hebrews 11:4
• His blood does not speak as well as Christ’s. Hebrews 12:24.
• Matthew 23:35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
• Luke 11:51 from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
• Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
• Hebrews 12:24 and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Why did God accept Abel’s sacrifice and not Cain’s sacrifice? 

• (Note: both Cain and his offering were not accepted.) 
• Abel was righteous and Cain was unrighteous. Matthew 23:35; Hebrews 11:4; John 3:12
• Abel and his sacrifice were accepted by faith. Hebrews 11:4
• Cain and his sacrifice were unacceptable because of no faith. Hebrews 11:4; compare Hebrews 11.
• 1 John 3:12 states that Cain was “of that wicked one.” Jude compares Cain to false prophets that had went Cain’s way and were like, “spots in your feasts of charity…” (Jude 11-12). 
• Hebrews 11:6 - “without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
• “An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin” (Proverbs 21:4).

Cain gave his sacrifice:

1. from a wicked heart 
2. without faith

The Fall of Man

What is the cause (or causes) of sin and the fall of man?

Could any other act of Adam and Eve in their perfect environment in the Garden – other than disobedience to the one divine prohibition – have been a sin and the cause of plunging mankind into sin and death? For example, when Eve either imprecisely restated what Adam told her or added to God’s word or lied or used an idiomatic expression or something else (you decide) by saying “neither shall ye touch it” – was that a sin?

God gave the command to Adam, before he created Eve. “thou” (singular) shalt not eat of it. “thou” shalt surely die. Eve only knew the command of God mediated through Adam. The command to not eat the fruit of the tree was in effect a command to stay away from it. Eve responds to the serpent with “we” and “ye” (plural). Surely this is not disobedience, but recognition that the command to man thereafter applied to man and woman, for they are one.

The serpent did not challenge “neither shall ye touch it” as being a false statement, but challenged the strength of the statement “lest ye die.”

Was Eve deceived into saying “neither shall ye touch it,” or was she deceived into believing the fruit was good and “Ye shall not surely die”? Verse 6 successfully answers that, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof.”

Probably most of the preachers within my range of fellowship might say something like or in the vicinity of “Eve added to God’s word,” but I think they also would draw back from saying that was the cause of the fall. We should carefully think about how we address and explain the fall. The biblical emphasis is plainly focused on Adam’s disobedience.

God gave a divine prohibition to Adam, concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. “thou shalt not eat of it.” “thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17) The fall and the condemnation of sin is because of the disobedience to this prohibition that God placed on man, the command to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When God spoke to Adam after his disobedience, he emphasized the eating of the tree. “Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” (Genesis 3:11) When he gives the cause, it is again related to the eating of the tree. “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it…” (Genesis 3:17-19) Eve was beguiled; Adam was not (Genesis 3:12-13; 1 Timothy 2:13-14). Without being deceived, Adam disobeyed God and freely took the fruit his wife gave him.

Read Genesis 3.

Jesus and our sin

The Saviour of Sinners.

1 Timothy 1:15.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

’Twas a heaven below,
The Redeemer to know,
And the angels could do nothing more;
Than to fall at his feet,
And the story repeat,
And the Saviour of sinners adore!

Introduction.

The regular non-Calvinistic missionary Baptists (Fundamental Baptists, Independent Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Southern Baptists) of the Southland have become weak on the subject of sin: (1) weak theologically, using language moving toward a nature with a tendency to sin and away from an inherent and inherited sin nature; and (2) weak practically, in preaching against sin, and disciplining sin in the church (e.g., so that known public wickedness is tolerated for members in a local church). Both problems go hand in glove. 

In theology, notice for example the change from the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith to the 1963 Southern Baptist Faith and Message (with language still the same in 2000).

NHCOF: “…in consequence of [the fall] all mankind are now sinners, not by constraint but choice; being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil; and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse.”

BFAM: “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.”

Ephesians 2:3 clearly states we are “by nature the children of wrath.” The 1963 modified the state of the sinner in the world, so that the posterity of Adam inherit “a nature and an environment inclined to sin” rather than “being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God.” In an 1889 debate with Campbellite J. A. Harding, Baptist J. B. Moody’s strongly worded proposition on depravity read thusly: “The Scriptures teach that man is so depraved in mind and heart that he is unable without a direct enabling power of the Holy Spirit to obey the Gospel of the Son of God.” 

Jesus came to save sinners and forgive sins, but he was not weak on sin. His rhetoric clearly and forcefully condemns sin. Notice these teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Sin is an internal, inherent matter.

Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

Mark 7:20-23 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

There is none good, but God.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

“Being evil” is an apt description of mankind.

Matthew 7: 11 If ye then, being evil…

• In this lesson on prayer, Jesus teaches that all people are evil (not just that they do evil, but that they are evil).

The self-recognizing sinner is commended, and the self-righteous Pharisee condemned.

Luke 18:13-14 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other…

None are without sin.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

We owe a debt we cannot pay.

Matthew 18:24-25 ten thousand talents…he had not to pay… 32 I forgave thee all that debt

• God’s forgiveness of sin is like the King forgiving his servant a debt he could not pay.

All need repentance.

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Luke 24:47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Conclusion.

Jesus and the Bible teaches our depravity is personal, inherited, complete. This whole person is affected by sin, in body, mind, spirit, and will, so that there is nothing good in any of us to commend to God. Only by the grace of God and Spirit of God can we be led to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. If we could pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, so to speak, The substitutionary crucifixion of Jesus Christ on the cross would be savage, senseless, and needlessly wrong. If we cannot determine the sickness, how can we determine the cure? God’s straight arrow of total depravity drives man from his self-reliance to a despair whose only relief is found by falling at the feet of a merciful Saviour!

If you do not properly abhor your sin, you cannot properly adore your Saviour.

The Days of Noah

…and the Days of Now.

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that (1) every imagination of (2) the thoughts of his heart was (3) only evil (4) continually.

1. The wickedness of man is total, all-encompassing. 
2. The wickedness of man is inherent, internal.
3. The wickedness of man is impudent, unmitigated.
4. The wickedness of man is constant, unrelenting.

Total hereditary depravity.

The anti-missionary missionary

My attention was recently brought to the article about Elder Daniel Parker on Wikipedia. Last year I warned how that “Wikipedia” is now “Woke-ipedia” – propelled by political correctness to expel historical exactness. Nevertheless, the historian in me struggled to ignore and not call attention to this problem concerning Parker, and will hope it is corrected.

Under the section “Religious Leadership” in the Parker article, at least two places need attention and correction. The article states:

“Parker believed that the non-white races who were the targets of foreign missions were people who were descended from the wicked seed of the serpent. He stated that since ‘God would save His own children, and since the children of Satan were predestined to eternal punishment, any kind of mission plan would seem ridiculous.’”

1. “Parker believed that the non-white races who were the targets of foreign missions were people who were descended from the wicked seed of the serpent.”

I am skeptical of this claim. It is unsourced. If it comes from a statement by Parker, it needs to be substantiated. Though it may appear that the footnote refers it back to Max Lee’s thesis “Daniel Parker’s Doctrine of the Two Seeds,” I found no such claim in Lee’s work. The practice of the Pilgrim Church belies such a doctrine. The church received non-whites into membership by experience & baptism, by relation, and by letter. The early minutes of the church, during Parker’s lifetime, are still accessible. Here are some examples from the minutes:

“Saturday, June 13th 1840. The Church met and in order proseded to business. 

“1st. A Black man by the name of Thom. Presented a letter to the Church of recommendation from his master Mr. Wm. J. Hamblitt, and informed the Church, That he was receved in to a Baptist Church at Barefeet meeting House, and was Baptised by Elder Luster, in the State of Tennessee, which some of the members of the Church knew, That he took a letter from that Church, and joined a Church in the western district Called Spring Hill Church, from which he took a letter, but from some cause, left his letter, and some of his close behind, with an expectation of getting them, but as yet has failed, The Church being satisfied, Received him into Fellowship, as by Relation, yet claimes the right to his letter should it come to hand Ajorned”

“On Sunday, 23d [August 1840], Received a Black woman by the name of Hannah by Experience, and Baptised her.”

“Friday September 3d 1841...3d. Granted a letter of dismission to Sister Hannah a Black woman living in San Augusteen County”

These examples show the church receiving and dismissing black members, which seems unlikely if the Wiki-page claim is true.

2. “He stated that since ‘God would save His own children, and since the children of Satan were predestined to eternal punishment, any kind of mission plan would seem ridiculous.’”

This quote is in error. “God would save His own children, and since the children of Satan were predestined to eternal punishment, any kind of mission plan would seem ridiculous” is a quote from Max Lee’s thesis (p. 13). It is not a quote of a statement made by Parker. This is an assessment of what people said about Parker, or thought about what he believed – “it would seem according to the traditional understanding of Parker’s two-seed views that no mission plan whatsoever was needed.” Lee considered the “the traditional understanding of Parker’s two-seed views” to be deficient.

It is true and correct that Daniel Parker opposed the missionary system devised by the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions. However, he did not oppose the preaching of the gospel. In fact, if one reads the entire thesis without cherry picking, we find that Max Lee concludes that Parker’s views have been misunderstood (for several reasons, some of which were Parkers own fault).[i] On page 85 Lee writes, “Lest these non-elect have an excuse for their unbelief, Parker urged that the gospel be preached to men everywhere, including the non-elect.”

All told, my opinion is that Daniel Parker’s doctrine of the two-seeds is his attempt to explain the existence of evil without making its origin come from God.

Max Lee concludes that “an examination of Parker’s writings reveals, contrary to the traditional view, that Parker was not opposed to missions. Rather, he was opposed to any mission plan which was not under the government and direction of the churches, an example of which was the societal mission plan of the Triennial Convention. Parker’s opposition was against this plan of the Triennial Convention and not against missions proper.”

Where Pilgrim Church meets is a little over an hour’s drive from where I live. I have visited there several times. The church no longer holds the “two-seed” doctrine as taught by Daniel Parker, but identifies itself as and fellowships with Absolute Predestinarian Primitive Baptists.

---

[i] Lee proposes three factors contributing to the misunderstanding: (1) “Parker’s critics ordinarily attacked him instead of his doctrines. As a result, Parker was belittled, while his doctrines remained relatively unknown,” (2) “Parker contributed to his own misunderstanding by resorting to sarcasm and ridicule, particularly in the pages of the Church Advocate,” and (3) “the scarcity and unavailability of his writings, which has forced a reliance on men such as John Mason Peck and R. B. C. Howell, both of whom opposed Parker’s antimissionism.” He further reasons that “the descriptions of Parker and of his antimission motivation presented by Peck and Howell respectively have discouraged further investigation.”

Satan’s repartee with Eve

Genesis 3:2-3 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Anglican cleric W. H. Griffith Thomas comments on a “3-fold error” in the words of Eve. He writes, “In her reply to his [the serpent’s] question, she perverted and misquoted three times the divine law to which she and Adam were subject: (1) She disparaged her privileges by misquoting the terms of the Divine permission as to the other trees. (2) She overstated the restrictions by misquoting the Divine prohibition. (3) She underrated her obligations by misquoting the Divine penalty.” ( W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary, London: Religious Tract Society, 1909, p. 48.)

A preacher could get ahold of that and shout, “That’ll preach.” Yes, but should it? There is another “that’ll preach” moment in Genesis 3 that should be approached circumspectly. It might be thrilling to hear someone preach on Adam blaming Eve, and Eve blaming the serpent. If so, where is their repentance? If what they say is read sans the emotion we add to it, we might see that they both tell the story exactly as it happened.

First, I think the objections about “ye-thou” and the “lest ye die” are picayune. There is little different there in what Eve said and what God said. When God gives the command as recorded in Gen. 2:15-17, there is no “ye” present. After the forming of Eve (2:18-25), then the command is to them both. I can’t see much to argue about there. “Lest ye die” seems to allude to the reason for not eating, the consequence being death (as opposed to meaning “ye might die”). Not different from thou shalt surely die, just saying it in a different context.

The main part of Eve’s statement that deserves real contemplation is “neither shall ye touch it.” Theologically, we cannot believe that Eve added to God’s word, which is a form of lying (Romans 3:4), and lying is a sin (Ex. 20:16; Lev. 6:1-7). If “neither shall touch it” is adding to God’s word, then either this is a sin and Eve sinned before and apart from partaking the forbidden fruit, OR the only sin that could happen in the Garden at this time was directly disobeying God’s command about partaking the forbidden fruit. If the latter is accepted, then it was not wrong at that time to add to God’s word. Either option produces a dilemma.

We might ask, “Is this idiomatic speech?” Perhaps, though I am not satisfied whether a neither nor statement by Eve rises to an idiom here. Eve is saying “Neither touch it nor eat it.” Why a neither/nor? Maybe it is an emphatic statement (in other words, added for emphasis on the seriousness of the disobedience). If my mother put a pie on the pie rack and said, “Don’t touch it,” I would know that it meant don’t eat it. She could also say, “Don’t eat the pie – don’t even touch it!” It would mean the same thing, but with perhaps a bit more emphasis.

Ultimately, I think the theological aspect of the fall must drive us away from the idea that Eve sinned before and apart from partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!!

Here are thoughts from a couple of Bible commentators:

• Albert Barnes: “The woman gives the natural and distinct answer of unaffected sincerity to this suggestion. The deviations from the strict letter of the law are nothing more than the free and earnest expressions of her feelings. The expression, ‘neither shall ye touch it,’ merely implies that they were not to meddle with it, as a forbidden thing.”
• Matthew Poole: “For it is not probable that the woman, being not yet corrupted, should knowingly add to God’s word, or maliciously insinuate the harshness of the precept.”

Sin before the fall?

...the serpent...said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Regarding the text on the fall of man in Genesis 3:1-7, there is something I have considered from time to time for 40 years. An older preacher friend brought it up when I was a young man. In the text, the transgression of Adam and Eve is taking the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:11). This theological thread runs through the Bible (see, e.g. Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians. 15:22; 1 Timothy 2:13-14).

If I remember correctly, the preacher asked whether Eve added to God’s word (or lied), in reference to her saying “neither shall ye touch it.” “Neither shall ye touch it” is not included in the restriction of Genesis 3:17 – “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Did Eve add to what God told Adam (or lie to the serpent). If so, wouldn’t this be a sin. In the end, this preacher sort of downplayed Eve’s claim with a bit of a humourous twist. He said, “Eve was not present when God gave the command to Adam – and that it was probably Adam who told her, saying, ‘Honey, don’t even touch it.’”

Others have suggested that Eve added to (neither shall ye touch it), subtracted from (“We may eat of the fruit of the trees” instead of “mayest freely eat,” and “lest ye die” instead of “shalt surely die”), and modified (“Ye shall not eat of it” instead of “thou shalt not eat of it”) God’s command. If adding to and taking from God’s word is a sin (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19), why was Eve not already in sin before she ever took the fruit?

I am not particularly troubled by this question, but find it somewhat intriguing. It seems a question worthy of legitimate scrutiny.

What are your thoughts? Thanks.

Follow the science?

Maybe the problem is that those who use the phrase do not even know what it means.

“But of course, you know, children aren’t supposed to die,” said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky in an interview with Bret Baier in which he challenged her to call out a Supreme Court Justice for spreading COVID Misinformation.

I can’t say how many times I have heard someone say “children aren’t supposed to die” – even people whose scientific or religious knowledge teaches them that is not a true statement.[i] And yet, many of us just shake our heads in solemn agreement, as if it is a universal truth. Well, I ain’t gonna take it anymore. Today I resist.

There is nothing in our scientific or religious knowledge that tells us that children aren’t suppose to die. In fact, everything in our ubiquitous learned experience denies that statement. And yet we make it, and make it, and make it.

What we mean is that we don’t want to see children suffer and die. We wish to see them live long and prosper. And hopefully that feeling is universally true for us, one and all. “Children aren’t supposed to die” expresses a yen within us. Nevertheless, the statement is not true – it is emotional, a statement or expression of feeling. For persons in places of leadership in religion, science, health care, and so on to assert such as simple truth is misleading and unhelpful.

“Let me not see the death of the child.”

“the child died”

“it is appointed unto men once to die”

---

[i] Another way I have heard it is “children aren’t supposed to die before their parents.”

The deceitful wicked heart

Man’s problem and God’s cure.

Jeremiah 17:9-10 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Diagnosis, sin. Inbred, ingrained sin in the heart, that is both deceitful and desperately wicked. It is not just the actions, but the heart itself that is sinful.

A people who dismiss the diagnosis will have no idea of a cure. Our society and even many of our churches reject the diagnosis of the deceitful and wickedness of man deep down in his heart – a diagnosis they cannot know by applying human reasoning. Only God searches, tries, and knows man’s heart. We cannot muse and meditate until we figure out the problem. Nevertheless, by revelation God has diagnosed the problem. “All have sinned.” “There is none good.” “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” “There is none good, but one, that is, God.”

By revelation God has prescribed the answer, the cure.

Isaiah 53: 4-5 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Acts 8:34-35 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Chesterton on original sin

“Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest skeptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. 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 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.”

G. K. Chesterton

Sin’s origins

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

The threefold origin of sin:

• In the universe of God’s creation, sin originated with the angel Lucifer. (1 John 3:8; Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:11-16; Revelation 12:9)
• In the world and the human race, sin originated with Adam. (Romans 5:12-19;1 Timothy 2:13-14; Genesis 3:1-21)
• In the individual, sin originates in the heart. (James 1:13-15; Mark 7:21-23; Jeremiah 17:9)

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

[A debate related to this topic is whether God is the author or originator of sin. All things were made by God and he is sovereign over all, so in the ultimate sense all things originate with God and nothing was made without him (John 1:3; Proverbs 16:4; Isaiah 46:9-11; Ephesians 1:11). On the other hand, the Bible never speaks in terms of God as the author of sin, and anything that God does, by its very nature, cannot be sin (James 1:17; 1 John 1:5). It seems (to me) that Bible believers accept this enigma, while some really smart people on either end of the spectrum wrestle with it to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).]

Sinners

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

3 Facts About Sin

We inherit sin and death. It is part and parcel of humanity.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

We come into the world not only prone to sin, but sinners by nature.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

We are unaware of our desperate sin condition until God reveals it.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

3 Ways People Relate to sin

Some people embrace and enjoy sin. This is a dismissal of the principle of sin, at least in their own cases, as well as the heinousness of it. (Cf. Hebrews 11:25)

Some people excuse and ignore sin. This is a recognition of sin as sinfulness, but ignoring it as sin when possible and excusing it when necessary. (Cf. Romans 2:15)

Some people recognize and repent of sin. This is a recognition of sin, as well as, by God’s grace, sorrowing over it unto repentance. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 7:10)

God and Evil

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Question. What is the meaning of "The LORD...creates evil" in this verse? Does God causes people to sin, based on this verse?

In this verse "evil" is set in contrast to "peace" rather than in contrast to "good". There is no problem with the word "evil" but with the connotation we put on it. We tend to "read into" biblical words the most common way we use it in our speech or writing, without comparing the full semantic range of meaning (and the context). Words gain meaning from their context. "Evil" is the most common way that the Hebrew word "rah" is translated in English (at least in the KJV & NASB) and it is used several times in Isaiah -- some times that speak of immorality or wickedness and some that speak of distress, calamity -- something "bad" happening. Isaiah 47:11, in its context, is a good example of how God brings evil, mischief and desolation upon Babylon in judgment. This evil is something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity. It stands opposite to "peace" in this verse in Isaiah. It fits the context of God's judgment described in Isaiah 45. Peace is not inherently always a moral good, and evil in the sense of moral evil is not under consideration in Isaiah's statement.

Adapting to our modern sensibilities, some, if not most, modern translations have adopted the words like "calamity" or "disaster" in place of evil. "Evil" is a better translation -- properly understood, it better encompasses the totality of all the things that are the opposite of peace.

We must understand that God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. I don't see any way that a Bible believer can avoid that conclusion. First there was nothing but God. Everything that is came from God, even if in a secondary or derivative way. God the creator is the first cause of all things, and there is nothing that exists outside his divine governance.

A Time to Die

I know there is a time to die.
I don't know when, but I know why.
The 'when' is settled in God's plan;
The 'why' is that we're sinful man.

Since all have sinned, so all must die:
A holy God brings justice nigh.
Death is the wages paid for sin;
To live you must be born again.

The gift of life, a gift of God
Delivers from the chastening rod.
Eternal life, eternal bliss,
God gives to all them that are His.

By the blogger, 10 November 2016

Random thoughts...

...on homosexuality, choice and nature.

Last week I read Mark Baer’s The Cause of Homosexuality Is Irrelevant, an articulate writing that fails to meet the expectation of its title. You can read it for yourself, but I want to highlight two points.

First, failure to prove what the title asserts. Baer says that the cause of homosexuality is irrelevant. He writes that “[m]any people seem fixated on the fact that the actual cause of homosexuality has not yet been established with any degree of certainty.” But his point that the cause is irrelevant only applies if we accept his dismissing of certain causes, leaving only the “right” causes as being possible causes and therefore irrelevant. In Baer’s mind the cause of homosexuality is genetic, environmental, or some combination of the two. It cannot be a “lifestyle choice.” He seems willing to allow it to be a choice in the case of bisexuality, but will not allow it in cases of heterosexuality and homosexuality. How strange.

Baer points to a story by Lee Thompson telling of his father’s point that no one would “choose a lifestyle that included discrimination or being subjected to violent acts.” That is just foolish, and contrary what anyone might easily observe – human beings regularly make choices that they intellectually know can and will yield bad results, even discrimination and violence toward them.

Contra Baer and Thompson, choice is clearly and explicitly relevant to all our sexuality, as far as acts are concerned. Inherent and learned behavior may affect how one thinks about sex, but whether and with whom one has sex is a choice – usually a consensual one made by two or more parties (except in cases of rape, in which case the choice in only made by the perpetrator.)

In addition to his comments about cause and choice, Baer ventures into the field of nature, writing, “If something is occurring in nature and cannot be changed, I'm afraid that it is natural.” Supporting this, he references Arash Fereydooni in Yale Scientific Magazine, "Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide."

Nature does not determine what is spiritual or moral. Without contradiction, heterosexual sex is “natural” in a way homosexual sex is not and can never be. Heterosexual sex is as natural as parking your car in the garage rather than the bathroom or the kitchen. Beyond that, Christians err in establishing heterosexuality as moral and homosexuality as immoral based on nature. As a purely physical act, sex with an opposite sex (hetero) prostitute is just as “natural” as sex with an opposite sex (hetero) spouse. It may be just as natural. It may be just as consensual. But it is not just as moral. Morality is not established by a simple appeal to nature.

So, one argues that since homosexual acts are found in nature, so it is natural. And so it may be, in that sense of the word “natural.” It may also be natural for a bull to take his fill of all the cows in the pasture, if he is the biggest and baddest. But do we wish to take that as our guide for human relationships? It may be natural for a dog to hump his master to relieve his sex drive (it’s probably not consensual!). But do we wish to take that as our model? Nature alone cannot be our model for proper sexual morality. We must look elsewhere. In the Christians’ case, we must look to the Bible as our rule of faith and practice. When we do so, we are bound to come up with different results from those who look elsewhere.

A Brief Review of a Brief Book

Born Guilty? A Southern Baptist View of Original Sin, Adam Harwood. Carrollton, GA: Free Church Press, 2013. ISBN 9781939283023. 38 pages, paperback.

Hot off the presses and in the heat of controversy, Born Guilty tackles the difficult question of whether an individual is guilty in God's sight before he or she is "morally capable" of understanding what sin is. The author is Assistant Professor of Christian Studies at Truett-McConnell College in Cleveland, Georgia and quite capable of addressing his subject. Harwood moves in the "Traditional" soteriological camp of Southern Baptists that asserts a middle ground position between Calvinism & Arminianism and seeks to stem the rising tide of Calvinism within the Convention.

The booklet is small, but should not be dismissed for its brevity. The author is able clearly, concisely and amicably to propose his view and make valuable this work. Born Guilty is one in a series by Free Church Press "focusing on biblical, theological and moral issues facing today's Christians. Though not stated in the book itself, the idea is to provide a quick overview and a compact study for lay members. Speaking of this series on his blog, Peter Lumpkins writes that the intent is to give "a brief summary of the subjects the series addressed" and that the audience intended is "people in the pew, neither pastors nor others with theological backgrounds." 

The book resides contextually as part of a controversy within the Southern Baptist Convention. It is nevertheless not limited to that utility, but will be beneficial to others not in the SBC and will add to the overall information in the broader soteriological/original sin debate. Calvinists will not likely applaud this new arrival, whether they find it a challenge to be answered or more evidence of what some of them have termed semi-Pelagianism. Some "Traditionalists" will prefer their position of "born guilty yet safe until they reach the age of accountability," a position well established among most non-Calvinist missionary Baptists. Others will welcome this as a clearer refutation of the original sin of Calvinism than their complicated series of leaps to hold all Adam's descendants guilty while assuring an eternal home in heaven for all infants who die.

Are infants born sinners? Are they born guilty? Harwood answers the last question with an unqualified "no" and the first with a "yes". The bulk of the book is about 2 dozen pages of Harwood's view positively presented while negating the "original sin" theory. The heart of the author's presentation is an exposition of Romans 5:12-21, which he calls "the most important text when considering the guilt of Adam's sin (p. 5)." Harwood also chronicles some theology and history favoring his position on Adamic guilt. Two appendices follow: A. Article 3 (the Fall of Man) from three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message,* 1925, 1963, and 2000; B. A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation. This booklet contains endnotes, but neither "Contents" nor "Index" -- both of which would have been helpful. I also found the use of italics for the main contents of the book an aesthetic negative.

The design of Born Guilty is to set forth the effects of sin on Adam's descendants while answering the problem of hereditary guilt from Adam. Harwood's conclusion is clear and resounding: "we become transgressors who are guilty and under condemnation for our sin only when we attain moral capability and first commit--knowingly commit--a sinful thought, attitude or action" (p. 4) and "If we are not guilty of Adam's sin, then a primary commitment of Calvinism is rendered unnecessary for sound biblical theology (p. 25)."

A few places in the booklet left me confused and wishing for more explanation. For example:

First, it seems that Harwood limits the views of original sin to only two -- "Do we receive from Adam a sinful nature or Adam's guilt? (p. 3)" But these are not mutually exclusive, and both are held systematically by Calvinists and not a few "Traditional" non-Calvinistic Baptists.

Second, in a list of Scriptures proving that individuals are accountable for their own sins, the author includes the judgment of the firstborn in Egypt (Exodus 12) and the death of David's and Bathsheba's baby because of David's sin (2 Samuel 12). These accounts may not speak directly to Adamic guilt. But I wanted Harwood to resolve the inclusion of those passages (pp. 12-13), which appear to be punishment of one for the actions of another (which seems to contradict the point of that list).

Next, the author discusses the views of the three SBC Presidents during the development of the 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statements. He inserts a curious reference to a statement by Paige Patterson. Though I do not doubt that Patterson's view likely accords with Harwood's, the supplied quote falls short of saying so (p. 22) and left me wondering why the author didn't include a direct statement of Patterson's theology.

Finally, Harwood includes and refers to the statements on the fall of man from the 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Messages. What he leaves unexplained, though, is how the 1925 article -- "his [Adam's] posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation" (p. 30) -- coincides with his view and whether the 1963 revision represents some discontinuity in the SBC view of inherited guilt and original sin. The 1925 statement does not say the same thing as the 1963 and 2000 statements, and does not support the view which the author is advancing.

Some self-absorbed theologians may disdainfully discount this brief volume. Certainly if one is looking for a weighty theological tome, this is not the one. If you want to delve more deeply the subject of the condition of infants, consider Harwood's The Spiritual Condition of Infants: a Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal for a statement of the "Traditional" Southern Baptist view.** But if you want to get an overview of one non-Calvinistic understanding on the issue of original sin and inherited guilt -- and one that is up-to-date with current controversy -- you can be informed by Born Guilty. Though I don't agree with the author's conclusion, I recommend his book as an insightful argument contra the Augustinian/Calvinistic view of original sin.

When I purchased this book I found it available in several venues, but ordering directly from Free Church Press was the most economical option (IOW, the best price!).

* The doctrinal statement of the Southern Baptist Convention
** This is representative of some other non-Calvinistic Baptists as well.