Sure, sure, we know. People do bad things. You know, "To err is human." Our own saying. But as almost every religion on the planet will tell you, it's just not that bad. As long as your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds in the end, you'll be okay. We find this concept denied on one hand and supported on the other when it comes to Christianity. Sure, we know that "All have sinned" and "The wages of sin is death," but, look, how bad can it be if God can just forgive it all? What's the big deal?
We have a problem with definitions here. First, we think of "sin" as a faux pas, a boo-boo, an embarrassing blunder, perhaps. Scripture considers it a transgression of the Most High and to violate the glory of the Most High deserves the ultimate penalty -- eternal death. Then we think that "forgive" means "to make little of." That's what we do, right? "Please, forgive me." "Oh, don't even think about it. It was nothing. No harm, no foul." Except that's not what we find in Scripture.
In Isaiah 6 we see God's prophet of the day, Isaiah, encountering God. Get that? God's designated mouthpiece meets God. This should be good, right? Isaiah describes the scene with the robe and the smoke and the seraphim crying, "Holy, holy, holy." (Isa 6:1-4) And Isaiah is terrified. Scholars tell us the language of his response is the unraveling of a person. "Woe is me! For I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" (Isa 6:5) Isaiah was coming apart in terror from being in the presence of the Holy One and not being holy himself. And God came down and patted his head and said, "Don't worry, little man. It was nothing. No harm, no foul." No, wait, rewind that. He did no such thing. No, God came down to the groveling prophet and thundered, "Grovel, you worm! Be afraid; be very afraid!" Okay, no, not that either. He neither minimized nor expanded the sin. Instead, "One of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: 'Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.'" (Isa 6:6-7)
God did not minimize Isaiah's sin. God did not squash him on the spot. God recognized that it was sin and atoned for it. He dealt with it.
Sin is no small deal. It exceeds our capacity to correct. It puts us under God's just wrath. It's a big deal, just as Isaiah rightly recognized. Forgiveness is not a dismissal of sin. It's taking it on yourself, assuming the payment, relieving the transgressor of guilt. It is exactly what Christ did for us on the cross. That is certainly not minimalism. We should have a more robust understanding of sin, its cost, and its remedy. Because he who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47).
11 comments:
How much worse to regard a sin no longer sinful?
Exactly what's going on. "This sin isn't as bad as we were told and that one isn't even a sin anymore."
Interesting. I don't read Dan or Feo's comments anymore. I get it. "We don't like what you say and you're hateful and sinful for saying it." Got it. And, in fact, Dan hardly ever comments anymore. (Feo comments all the time. I get to delete unread comments from him almost every day.) But they both came in hard on this one. I can only assume that they're up in arms arguing that it isn't that bad and I'm wrong for suggesting that "the wages of sin is death" means that sin is really bad. My bad. (Yes, that last was humor.) But it explains a lot when the "Left Christian" finds sin more of a faux pas than a violation of God's glory (Rom 3:23). And no more punishment in this world, like for our kids, ought to translate to no more punishment in the next. "Well, you might have to have a time out in the corner for an hour, but it'll be okay." (Mind you, I have no idea if either of them said it. It's just, I suspect, the type of thinking their doing.)
I saw a bit of one of Feo's comments before I deleted it, and I think that he's mad at you because you don't read his thoughtful and well reasoned nuggets of wisdom that he is kind enough to bless you with. Or something similar.
It's difficult to deal with the issue of sin when each side is defining the same terms differently.
I saw this today and was thinking about posting it, but it seems to fit here as well.
"A major difference in talking about the cross. A) jesus died to save us from the *penalty of sin B) Jesus dies to save us from the *Power of Sin*. The former is about God's punishmant of sinners. The latter is about God's liberation of sinners through defeating evil. I'll take B!"
Kurt Willems
I guess I'd add C) both of the above, at a minimum.
I think that part of the problem is that some folks have tried to transform God from His rightful place and portray Him as more of a good buddy. Once you've removed God from His throne, and removed, ignored, or minimized His less pleasant attributes, then "transgressing" or "miss the mark" don't seem all that significant.
The problem isn't the words used or the concept, it lies in removing God's holiness, power, sovereignty,and power, from Him, reducing "transgression" the the equivalent of a minor infraction.
It's not the degree of the sin, it's who we sin against that makes sin so significant.
I believe you're absolutely right that our failure to grasp the magnitude of a "Holy, holy, holy" God is a major cause of our failure to grasp the magnitude of our "transgression."
I think it's why it annoys me when people characterize God's commandments as "rule", it seems to equate God's commandments with what you have governing a game. As we see with games, the concept of "house rules" is pretty common. I guess that thinking translates to God as well.
A "rule" as opposed to a "law"? What I think is most often missed is the underlying "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" thing. Since everything revolves around "the glory of God," ultimately any failure toward that end is the problem. "Rule" falls way short at this point.
I agree that the problem starts (and probably ends) with the attempt to minimize God and His attributes. Or with the attempt to maximize humans. Although #1 probably always involves #1 anyway.
I do think that the term "rule" is one that we think of a flexible. How many times do we see games or sports with "house rules"? Or we talk of bending the rules. I think that if we stuck with commandment, or law we'd have a better perspective on both the authority of God as well as what He expects from us.
Which boils down again to the level of authority God has over us, right?
Yes.
Post a Comment