SIN
766
SIN"
words, this school distinguishes between sin and de- pravity, holding all sin to consist in voluntary action, and depravity to be simply that disordered state of the soul which renders it [jroiie to commit sin. This view is the one generally entertained by the new-school di- vines in the Presbyterian Church, by a majority of the Congregationalists, and by many of the Episcopalians and the Methodists. According to this view, mankind are overwhelmed in ruin, which Ailara brought upon the race, but are not guilty except as they become so by personal conduct.
4. The fourth theory, known in theological language, from its most eminent expounder, Pelagius, as Pelagi- ANiSM (q. v.), denies that there is anv connection be- tween Adam and his posteritj", or that the race is in any sense held responsible for, or on account of, Adam's sin. Each soul, according to this theory, is created as was Adam, pure and innocent, and undetermined towards either sin or holiness. Each soul, for itself, chooses its own destiny by its voluntary choice of good or evil, right or wrong. The universality of sinfulness, it is said, is sufliciently explained by the evil influence and example of those by whom the young are from their earliest years surrounded. According to this theorj' it is possible, or at least ([uite conceivable, that a man should be utterly sinless; and in such a case there would be no need of any divine Saviour or any regenerating Spirit. That need is occasioned in each individual case by each indi- vidual deliberately choosing for himself the way of sin. A moditication of this view, by which there is an en- deavor to combine it with the others, is termed Semi- Pda<fi(inisin (q. v.). According to this view there is no ruin except that which each individual brings upon liimself; and, consequently, no need of redemption ex- cept such as springs from the individual's own guilt in departing from God and disobeying his law.
III. History of the Doctrine. — The early Church, it is maintained by some, was unacquainted with the doc- trine; and the most orthodox admit that the doctrine had not at that time been fully developed. We offer the opinions of some of the early fathers. Gregory of Nuzianzum maintained that both the voT't' and the i^i'x'/ have been considerably impaired by sin, and regarded the perversion of consciousness seen in idolatry, wliich previous teachers had ascribed to the influence of dae- mons, as an inevitable effect of the first sin. But he was far from asserting the total depravity of mankind and the entire loss of the free will. Athanasius main- tained man's ability to choose good as well as evil, and even allowed exce|)tions from original sin, alleging that several [)ersons jjrior to Christ wi^re free from it. Cyril of Jeriisiilem assumes that the life of man begins in a state of innocence, and that sin enters of the free will. Chrysostom insisted upon the liberty of man and his self-detertnination. A iir/nxtine laid down that every natural man is in the power of the devil, and upheld the justice of this as a puuisliment for the share which the individual had in Adam's transgression. Pehiijiust, on the other hand, who rejected the Traducian theory, de- nied that the fall of Adam has exercised any prejudicial influence on the moral condition of his posteritj'. He maintained tliat all men are born in innocence, possess the power of free will, and may live without sin. The views of Augustine never secured a footing in the East- ern ( 'hurch, and even in the West they met wilh oppo- sition. The Ueformers of the Hilh century made orig- inal sin a leading doelrijie, and thus werc^ enabled effec- tively to combat the lloman Catholic doctrine of the merit of works.
See Cunningham, llistorind Theidogy, i, 3.S3 ; Ilagen- bach, llisl.of liortrimx ; Van Oosterzee, C/irixliim Dog- miitii:i ; Edwards, Wesley, and Taylor, on Origiuul Sin. (Jomp. Kai.i,; I.Mrci'A tios.
SIN. J'liii.osoi'iiicAi,. Philosophical sins, in opposi- tion to theological, according to the .Jesuits, are those in which a man at the time of committing them has not j (iod and his law before his niiml, lie. therefore, wilh- i
out thinking of God, transgresses natural or revealed law. These sins the Jesuits held to be venial; that is, such as do not draw after them a loss of divine grace, and do not deserve eternal, but only temporal, punishment.
SIN, PuESUMfTt'ous. Presumptuous sins are those which are done boldly, and against light and conviction. See Pkesu.mption.
SIN, Punishment of. That God punishes those who disobey him is a fact generally recognised by men; it is justified by the voice of conscience, and illustrated by the dealings of every parent and judge. The Bible confirms this opinion and reveals the wrath of God against all sin, whether that sin be outward immorality or inward impurity; whether it be positive rebellion against divine law or the absence of a childlike, trust- ing love exercised towards our heavenly Father.
There are three principles on which punishment is inflicted by men — the remedial, the deterrent, and the retributive; and we find each of these recognised in Scripture as the principles on which God punishes na- tions and individuals.
1. National punishments are for national sins. They are inflicted where a nation as a whole takes part in sins of a grievous character. This was the case with Sodom and Gomorrah, the punishment of which was retributive, not remedial, though intended, doubtless, to deter other nations from similar wickedness. But before a city was visited with final retribution a time of repentance was allowed, and God is represented as waiting till the iniquity of a place was complete, and till it was ripe for destruction. Thus a time was given to Nineveh, and it repented; and the cities of the Ca- naanites were not destroyed until they had filled up the measure of their iniquity; so it was, also, in the case of the final destruction of Jerusalem. We constantly find that God recognises corporate civil existence and official acts, and that he punishes a nation for the acts of its rulers, as when the pestilence came upon Israel for the sin of David in numbering the people. In many cases the sins of the fathers were visited on the chil- dren; for, as an ungodly nation grew older, its sins grew more abundant and its rebellion more unpardona- ble, until at last the time came when long-suffering turned to wrath (Jer. iv, 4; vi, 11) and God jioured out his fury and indignation on the people. The case of Israel is clearly set before us. When, as a nation, they forgot God, he chastised them in order to bring them to a sense of their sins; he warned them from time to time that these chastisements, which were remedial, would be followed by more severe punishments, and in due season, when all warnings were in vain, retribution came — their land was desolated and they were carried into captivity. Here their history would have ended, as the history of many other nations has ended, had not (iod a special purpose to fulfil through their means. They were brought back to their country, not because they were better than they liad been before — though it is true that their iiunisliment had its etfect in giving them a lasting abhorrence of idolatry — Init because God had made a promise to Abraham which involved the contiiuiation of their national existence. Wc do not find this in the case of other nations; and thus God's dealings with the heatheit mark the retributive prin- cipl(! of ]Hmishment, while his conduct towards the chosen people gives more frequent illustrations of re- medial chastisement,