Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Sin or 'Disease'? - Part two

Today many seem utterly lacking in any notion of the profound evil of sin. Presently most are more concerned about feeling good rather than doing good. We grieve on account of our troubles; on account of our sicknesses; on account of our calamities; but do we still grieve on account of our sin? Do we still believe that sin is exceedingly evil? It is because of our sinful nature that we commit sinful acts not because we have any particular disease: 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 [and every other sin]: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man. [Mark 7:21-23] Being a drunkard is a sin! [Galatians 5:21] Being an adulterer is a sin! [Matthew 5:27-28] All these sins flow out of a sinful heart!

Now perhaps you think that I’m being harsh towards those who are caught up in alcoholism, or pornography, or drugs, or any other addiction by calling these activities sin! But what hope does the secular world offer these individuals? In some cases the world teaches that the way of removing the guilt that comes from participating in a particular sin is simply to accept that sin as ‘normal’ behaviour. In other cases it teaches that you’ll be forever enslaved whether that is to alcohol or to drugs and that you need the ‘medicine’ of psychotherapy for the rest of your life. Drunkards and drug addicts can check into clinics for ‘treatment’ of their ‘chemical dependencies.’ But they are told that they need to receive ‘treatment’ for their addictions for the rest of their lives! They are told that there is no way that they can ever expect to be set free from these sins for as long as they live. Alcoholics Anonymous believes “there is no such thing as a cure for alcoholism.”[1] Is there any hope in such a way of thinking?

It shows us the hopelessness of every alternative to the gospel. The gospel is so much richer than any treatment of sin by secularists! When we refuse to acknowledge our sin it is then that we are burdened with guilt. David said: When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy on me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. (Psalm 32:3-4) Isn’t this characteristic of many who continue in patterns of sin? Always trying to cover sin begins to weigh heavily on one’s conscience because it is overwhelmed with the guilt of sin. But notice how true peace and forgiveness comes by acknowledgment of sin and confession: I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. (Psalm 32:5)

There is only one way in which sin can be dealt with; there is only one way in which sin can be destroyed! There can be no salvation for those who aren’t convinced of the wickedness of sin. It is only when one acknowledges that his external actions originate from a sinful heart that he will flee to the only Saviour of sinners: the Lord Jesus Christ! It is only by repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ that one can ever begin to conquer any sin. This is the only way in which the guilt, punishment, or power of sin can be removed from your life. There is no hope in renaming your sin ‘disease’ – for then you become merely a victim of circumstance. But when you take responsibility for your sins – when you acknowledge your sin – there is forgiveness with the Lord! There is only hope when you call sin, sin! There is no hope when you call sin, disease.

Postscript: If you are interested more in this topic there are two books that I recommend. They are:

Edward T. Welch, Blame it on the Brain? P&R Publishing: New Jersey, 1998

John F. MacArthur, The Vanishing Conscience Word Publishing: Dallas, 1994

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Sin or 'Disease'? - Part one

Previous generations didn’t hesitate to call addiction to alcohol, drugs, or pornography sin. “As recently as the 1960’s, most people agreed that alcohol abuse was sin – a problem of the heart – rather than a brain or chemical problem.”[1] However, today there is a tendency to call these addictions ‘diseases’ rather than sin. For instance Alcoholics Anonymous states:

We in A.A. believe alcoholism is a disease that is no respecter of age, sex, creed, race, wealth, occupation, or education. It strikes at random.[2]

The result of renaming alcoholism and other addictions ‘diseases’ tends to absolve the participant of any responsibility for his actions. Those who engage in these sinful practices are then consider ‘victims’ rather than sinners. Victims are not responsible for their actions; they are casualties of what happens to them. So almost every human failure is presently described in how the perpetrator has been victimized.

One of the main reasons that the above-mentioned sins (and many others) are presently labelled ‘diseases’ is because some scientists believe that these originate in our genes. Now I’m not a scientist, but it is my understanding that they have not been able to locate any particular gene which predetermines absolutely if a person is going to engage in alcoholism, drug addiction or any other sinful behaviour. Yet, for the sake of argument, let us assume that there is a specific gene that can be identified for every particular sin imaginable.

First, if a specific gene could be identified which made one genetically predisposed to a particular sin would that require us to redefine sin? How do we define sin? We define sin as that which is contrary to the very nature of God and as summarized for us in the Ten Commandments. Catechism students, you may have learned that sin is that which breaks God’s law by omission or commission in thought, word or deed. Now, if it was proven that there was a specific gene which made murder, or pornography, or alcoholism, or any other sin a greater temptation for someone, would that mean that it would no longer be sin? No, of course not, for scripture teaches that these activities are contrary to God’s nature. The definition of sin doesn’t change because of our inabilities!

Second, if a tendency towards a particular sin were present in one’s genes, would that absolve the perpetrator of responsibility for his actions? What does the Bible teach us? It teaches us that we need to take responsibility for our sins regardless of their origin. In a certain sense, sin is in our genes for we are all conceived and born in sin (Psalm 51:5), but that does not excuse us of our responsibility when we sin! Our depravity is not an excuse for our sin nor does it absolve our responsibility! We must not make allowances for sin! We are no different than Adam and Eve after their fall into sin. Immediately they tried to escape their responsibility by shifting the blame for their sin to someone else. Adam said: The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. (Genesis 3:12) Eve said: The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. (Genesis 3:13) We are still trying to escape responsibility for our sin. We are still trying to shift the blame to someone or something else. But really, unless we take responsibility for our sin, there is little hope for us. Christians are rapidly losing sight of sin as the root of all human woes but in so doing they also lose sight of the gospel which is able to save!

Whether we have a genetic disposition towards a particular sin or not, sin is exceedingly wicked! Jeremiah Burroughs in his treatise titled: The Evil of Evils makes the following comment about the wickedness of sin.

It is a very evil choice for any soul under heaven to choose the least sin rather than the greatest affliction. Better be under the greatest affliction than be under the guilt or power of any sin…There is more evil in sin than in outward trouble in the world; more evil in sin than in all the miseries and torments of hell itself.[3]



[1] Edward T. Welch, Blame it on the Brain? (P&R Publishing: New Jersey, 1998), 186

[3] Jeremiah Burroughs, The Evil of Evils (Ligonier, Pa: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992 reprint of 1654 original), 2-3