Sin as a State or Condition

QUESTION: Give Scripture references where sin is used to designate a state or condition and not an act.

ANSWER: Rom. 3:9, "they are all under sin," as explained in verses 10-18. Verses 10-13 inclusive denote a state, as also verse 18. Rom. 6:1, "continue in sin." Here the verb implies a state. The next verse, "we who died to sin, how can we any longer live therein?" The words "live therein" must relate to a state of sin rather than an act. Sin is sometimes used to denote the source whence the evil acts proceed; hence II Thess. 2:3, "man of sin," a man in such a condition that he seems unable to live without sin; also Rom. 5:21, 6:12, "Sin reigned." Here Paul is thinking of sin as a state which he personifies, as he does in Rom. 7:23 and 8:2, "law of sin." The same is true of Rom. 6:6, "in bondage to sin." Christ conceives of sin as a condition in John 8:34, "the bond servant (Greek, slave) of sin."

— Steele's Answers p. 139.

The Biblical Proofs of Inbred Sin

QUESTION: What are the Biblical proofs of inbred sin or birth sin?

ANSWER: They are chiefly found in the Old Testament, such as Ps 51:5, "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me;" 58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Job 15:14, "What is man, that he should be clean? And he that is born of woman, that he should be righteous?" Rom. 5:12-21 contains proofs that the effect of Adam's sin was universal. Eph. 2:3, "by nature children of wrath," has been considered a strong proof of original or inbred sin, but from the context we learn that Paul is describing adult, actual, responsible sinners, whom he deems worthy of punishment, expressed in the Hebrew idiom as "children of wrath." Richard Watson thought that John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," is the strongest proof of inbred sin to be found in the Bible. But scholars now study the meaning of words as used by different writers, and they agree that nowhere in John, and probably nowhere in the Gospels, is "flesh" used in a bad sense to denote depravity. "The flesh," says President Timothy Dwight, "is to be understood here in the physical, not in the moral, sense." "Flesh and spirit," says Westcott, "are not related to one another as evil and good; but as two spheres of being with which man is connected by the spirit of heaven, by the flesh to the earth."

— Steele's Answers pp. 132, 133.

"Sins" and "Sin" — Singular and Plural

QUESTION: Is  it not a fact that all Scriptural texts speaking of sin in the singular number have reference to inbred sin and never refer to actual sins (plural)? Is not this true?

ANSWER: It is not true. In the singular "sin" is found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt., Mark and Luke) but once, "Every sin and blasphemy," etc. (Matt. 12:81). Stephen prayed, "Lord lay not this sin to their charge" (Acts 7:60), "If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death," etc. "There is a sin unto death" (I John 5:16), and "If we say we have no sin" (1:8), in all these texts some act of sin is meant. The phrase "to have sin" is found elsewhere only in John 9:41, "If ye were blind, ye would have no sin;" 15:22, 24, "If I had not * * *  spoken * * * they had not sin." Also, "He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (19:11). This phrase "to have sin" the experts say is the strongest possible expression for an act entailing guilt. The poet Euripides uses it of one who has committed murder. John uses the term "sin" in only one signification, "the transgression of the law." Paul rhetorically personifies sin, i.e., sinning, as an imperial personage ruling sinners who become his slaves, and John personifies sin as a slave holder (8:34). "The slave of sin is bondage to sinning." Sow a thought, and you reap an act, sow an act, and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny. The consequences of Adam's transgression have damaged me, but the guilt he did not bequeath to me, because it is non-transferable. Yet Wesley in the second of the Articles of Religion speaks of Christ as "a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of man." Substitute Adam's for "original," and I will accept it.

— Steele's Answers pp. 117, 116.

Repression or Purification?

It is a remarkable fact that while the Greek language richly abounds in words signifying repression, a half score of which occur in the New Testament, and are translated by to bind, bruise, cast down, conquer, bring into bondage, let, repress, hold fast, hinder, restrain, subdue, put down, and take by the throat, yet not one of these, συνέχω, κατέχω, κωλύω, συγκλείω, καταπαύω, is used of inbred sin; but such verbs as signify to cleanse, to purify, to mortify or kill, to crucify, and to destroy. When St. Paul says that he keeps under his body and brings it into subjection, he makes no allusion to the σάρξ, the flesh, the carnal mind, but to his innocent bodily appetites. In Pauline usage body is different from flesh. 

We have diligently sought in both the Old Testament and the New for exhortations to seek the repression of sin. The uniform command is to put away sin, to purify the heart, to purge out the old leaven, and to seek to be sanctified throughout spirit, soul, and body. Repressive power is nowhere ascribed to the blood of Christ, but rather purifying efficacy. Now, if these verbs, which signify to cleanse, wash, crucify, mortify, or make dead, and to destroy, are all used in a tropical or metaphorical sense, it is very evident that the literal truth signified is something far stronger than repression. It is eradication, extinction of being, destruction.

— Mile-Stone Papers, Part 1, Chapter 13.

Are We Responsible for Original Sin?

QUESTION: Are we not responsible for inbred sin?

ANSWER: I cannot he responsible for any inborn quality. But when I find that there is a perfect cure in the blood of Christ and I prefer the disease to the cure, I become responsible for the continued existence of the inherited evil tendency. The whole Christian world from before the days of Jerome down to Wesley inclusive believed in the guilt of the original sin, that we all sinned in Adam and deserve punishment for Adam's sin and that we cannot plead an alibi, i.e., that we were elsewhere. This doctrine which has perplexed Christians and clouded the character of God 1,500 years, came from a mistranslation of Rom. 3:12, "in whom all have sinned," instead of "in that we all sin" (sooner or later), all except the Son of man. This mistake is, in the earliest Latin Version, and was copied by Jerome in the Vulgate, guilt of "original sin" became fixed in the theology of the church from which it descended into some reformed churches, especially those of the Calvinian type.

— from Steele's Answers pp 94, 95.

Is Original Sin a Biblical Doctrine?

QUESTION: Are the phrases "original sin," "birth sin," "inbred sin" found in the Bible?

ANSWER: No. But a doctrine may be in the Bible while the term invented by men to express it is not scriptural, such as Trinity, sacrament, eucharist. Atonement is not found in the Revised New Testament. Theologians, feeling the need of a term to express racial bent or inclination towards sin inherited from Adam and Eve, called it original sin, using the term "sin" in an improper sense, because "sin properly so called," says J. Wesley, "is the willful transgression of a known law of God." Hence Arminians, whenever they use any one of these three phrases, are obligated to disclaim the elements of volition and guilt, which constitute the essence of sin. Much perplexity and many theological discussions would have been avoided if a different term had been invented to denote the racial trend towards sin. Paul used the terms "flesh" and "carnal" in 1 Cor. 3:1-3, and Gal. 5:17 in describing Christians in whom there was still lingering the proclivity to sin. But this word has about a half dozen meanings, mostly good, so that its use to denote badness is very confusing. Hence many speakers and writers decline to use the term so equivocal. The phrase "sin which dwelleth in me," occurs in Rom. 7:17 as descriptive, not of a regenerated person, but of a convicted moralist, personated by Paul, a character striving to realize his ideal of righteousness without faith in Jesus Christ. If real sin dwells in a man, he is not born of God, but is a child of the devil, according to 1 John 3:9, 10.

— Steele's Answers pp. 75, 76.

Dr. Huntington on Inbred Sin

QUESTION: In a recent editorial on Christian Perfection, Dr. Buckley says that, in the judgement of many persons, Dr. Huntington demonstrates successfully that the theory of inbred sin cannot be sustained. Later on, Dr. Buckley says: "Almost every Christian finds sooner or later after his conversion what may be described as the 'roots of bitterness.'" Would Dr. Huntington say that?

ANSWER: I think he would. He contends that sin is only in the will, and not in the intellect nor in the sensibility, both being inevitable, being "absolutely caused." But he admits that "inbred derangement, perversion, disorder, are more or less, in believers; but more cloudless certainty can scarcely exist in a mathematical axiom than that, whatever is upon us by the unavoidable operation of fixed law, is not our sin."

— Steele's Answers pp. 71, 72. 

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a reference to a book by De Witt Clinton Huntington entitled Sin and Holiness or What It Is to be Holy (1898). A Internet search will turn up a few old reviews of this book.

Is Inward Sinfulness Necessary to Keep Us Humble?

But is not sin in the heart necessary to keep the soul humble? Will not spiritual pride lift itself up as soon as sin is destroyed ?

As well might you ask whether a man would not lift up his head haughtily when his neck has been broken. The Holy Spirit, taking complete possession of the heart, not only breaks the neck of sin, but casts out this strong man, leaving no seed of pride behind. Perfect love to Christ is perfect lowliness. When it is demonstrated that men must drink a little whiskey daily in order to temperance, — steal a trifling amount every day in order to be honest, — tell a few fibs every twenty four hours in order to be truthful, — and occasionally violate the seventh commandment that they may maintain their purity, — then we will sit down and soberly answer the objection that a little nest-egg of sin in the heart is a necessary nucleus about which all the Christian virtues are to be gathered.

— from Love Enthroned, Chapter 5.

The Propensity to Sin

QUESTION: Opposers to holiness in our town assert that those who have no bent toward sin are incapable of temptation, that Adam before his fall and that Jesus Christ himself had this bent, otherwise they could not be tempted.

ANSWER: If this reasoning is correct, it follows that the devil and his angels had depraved tendencies before they fell into sin, and that they were created with a propensity to sin implanted in them by God. This makes Him the author of sin. If you ask how a perfectly holy soul can sin, we reply that we do not know. How sin got into a holy universe is a question which puzzles all the sages. To give a good reason for sin would justify sin. Sin is unreason. In the Bible the sinner is properly styled a fool. My mind reposes upon a doctrine I cannot explain, that every sinner is the first cause of his own sin, a cause uncaused which no man can explain or comprehend. Every moral intelligences angel, or man is the absolute creator of his own character and destiny.

— from Steele's Answers p. 40. 

On Sin in Believers

What is the difference then, between sin in a sinner, and sin in a believer? The same difference that there is between poison in a rattlesnake and the virus of that serpent injected into a healthy man. The venom is natural to the reptile. He delights in it, secretes and cherishes it with pleasure. But all the vital forces of the man resist the injected poison, and rally to thrust it out of the system.