For Further Reading: Purkiser

There was no original sin in Christ. The Jews believed that inherited depravity was trans­mitted from Adam through the male; but Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and was born without that sinful bias that belongs to all other members of the human race. The birth of the in­fant Christ was not a birth out of sinful human nature, but a conjoining of the human nature from Mary with the divine nature of the Holy Spirit. In a sense, Christ was sanctified by this conception. Because of this, Christ was perfect in His relation to His Heavenly Father from His birth, and absolutely free from the sinful bias which is characteristic of every other son of Adam.

Christ was also free from committed sin: "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Pet. 2:22). As a child, He was obedient: "He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them" (Luke 2:51). As a youth, He was respectful and upright: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" (v. 52). As a man, He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sin­ners, and made higher than the heavens" (Heb. 7:26).

The question is often asked in reference to the temptation of Christ (Matt. 4:1-11), "Could Christ have sinned?" The technical terms around which the debate has raged have been pec­cability, "capable of sinning," and impeccability, "incapable of sinning." As a man with a free will Jesus could have sinned. The temptation was not

Christ not only loved righteousness, He hated sin. He was always strong in applauding right, and equally strong in denouncing evil. The holi­ness of Christ was full-orbed as well as spotless. A full manifestation of holiness does not consist merely in doing nothing wrong, but in doing all that is right. Christ exemplified all of that in His own life.

It was the sinlessness of Christ which qualified Him to give His life as an atoning sacrifice for others.

See TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, CHRISTOLOGY, HUMAN­ITY OF CHRIST.

For Further Reading: Miley, Systematic Theology, 2:246; Newell, Hebrews Verse by Verse, 147-50; GMS, 350; Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews, 107; Wiley, Epistle to the Hebrews, 163-64. DONALD R. PETERMAN

SINNING RELIGION. The term really should be in quotes—"sinning religion"—for it is meaning­less excepting as a colloquial symbol of a com­mon doctrine of sin. The belief is that Christians cannot avoid sin, that in fact, every Christian sins "in thought, word, and deed" every day. This pessimism concerning the possibilities of the Christian life is very pervasive and widespread, among Lutherans, Reformed, and even some Ar­minians. Not all would express themselves as crassly or extremely, but they share one thing in common—a doubt concerning the adequacy of grace to save from sinning in the practical wear and tear of everyday life.

Whether this produces the chronic grief of chronic defeat, or dull indifference to what is a habitual way of life, or even elation and buoy­ancy in the belief that the sinning doesn't really matter anyway, depends upon the soteriological foundations on which the sinning religion is based. An antinomianism which understands grace to mean deliverance from obligation to the moral law will of course foster a high-handed libertarianism of life-style, all within the frame­work of Christian profession and religious activ­ity. Generally in the theological background is some form of "finished salvation" and "imputed righteousness" which makes salvation depend entirely on the objective validity of the Atone­ment, the benefits of which are unconditionally the nonforfeitable possession of the elect. In this scheme the sins are already forgiven anyway, therefore need be no cause for serious concern.

Some few are sufficiently spiritually sensitive to know that holiness is the biblical standard, and that sinning should be avoided, certainly not taken lightly; but they experience no power by which they are enabled to avoid sinning, and in their doctrinal system they know of none. Their system postulates a failure in the scheme of di­vine redemption, which provides salvation from guilt now and sin's power and presence in the next life, but offers no promise of complete vic­tory over sin now.

The "sinning religion" complex is rooted not only in an inadequate doctrine of grace, and a radically erroneous doctrine of the Atonement, but also in a faulty doctrine of sin. That man out of grace is a mass of corruption is undeniable, but that he remains such as a Christian makes mockery of the saving power of Christ, and in­sults the sanctifying efficacy of the Holy Spirit's influences. But this affront to the power of grace is due in part to (1) the hangover of Au-gustinianism's attachment of sinfulness to the physical body, and (2) the notion that sin is to be defined by the letter of the law rather than by the spirit. Those who cannot see the moral difference between sins and mistakes, or between the dis­ease of sin and its scars, or between a carnal dis­position and human infirmities, will of course have no place for any true freedom from sin.

But if "love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom. 13:10), then the nonfulfillment of the law—i.e., sin—should be defined in terms of love. Love is a matter of heart—of motives, intentions, affec­tions, priorities; not a matter of hair-splitting details of external performance. Sin cannot prop­erly be ascribed to an attitude of true love or a deed truly done in love, even though the deed itself may be mistaken or even wrong. Of course the doer must be open to light respecting the tightness or wrongness of the deed; if he is not amenable, the deed becomes sin; but in such a case the defect is a defect of love. Since love "worketh no ill to his neighbour," it will naturally desire to know what may or may not be harmful to the neighbor—which is to say, love always lis­tens, is "easy to be intreated" (the true wisdom, Jas. 3:17), therefore always sensitive, teachable, improving. And these are the focal points of blameworthiness or blamelessness, which means the focal points of sin. Any other view of sin de­stroys its moral content and reduces it to an acci­dent or a misfortune, not a misdeed.

The indictments which can be leveled against a "sinning religion" philosophy of Christianity

Perhaps the fourth indictment is the most so­bering of all. (4) The doctrine of a sinning re­ligion imprints on the entire redemptive scheme the stamp of abysmal failure. The Savior is un­able to save from the one enemy—sin—where we most need salvation—on earth—when we most need it—now. Satan remains stronger than Christ, sin stronger than grace, and the believer's death must be appended to the Cross to make the Blood adequately effective in its sanctifying efficacy.

While Wesley refused to use the term "sinless perfection," and Wesleyans generally disavow it, there is a sense in which sinless perfection is the only kind Wesleyans do believe in. The term is objectionable because of its unintended con­notations. But if it is proper for Wesleyans to profess belief in "perfect love," and if sin is defined in terms of love, then, while "faultless perfection" would miss the mark, "sinless per­fection" does not really merit the reproach gener­ally heaped upon it.

Notwithstanding that digressing considera­tion, the conclusion is that for Christians to talk about continual or even frequent sinning is no credit to them, and certainly a dishonor to their Lord. Only one biblical advice is to be given to sinners: Stop it!

See SIN, HOLINESS, SINLESS PERFECTION, INTENTION, PERFECT LOVE, MISTAKES, INFIRMITIES, LIABILITY TO SIN, CALVINISM.

For Further Reading: Purkiser, Conflicting Concepts of Holiness; Brockett, Scriptural Freedom from Sin; Sweeten, Sinning Saints; Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin; Fletcher, Checks to Antinomianism. RICHARD S. TAYLOR

SINS AGAINST THE SPIRIT. Sins against the Holy Spirit may be listed as (1) grieving Him (Eph.

4:30); (2) quenching the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19); (3) resisting the Spirit (Acts 7:51); (4) attempting to commercialize the power of the Spirit (8:19-20); (5) trifling with the Spirit (Heb. 6:4-6); (6) de­spising the Spirit (10:29); and (7) blaspheming the Spirit (Matt. 12:31-32).

When the above scriptures are examined in context, it becomes clear that warnings against grieving, quenching, trifling, and despising are directed to Christians. These sins represent pro­gressively grave stages in apostatizing. To grieve the Spirit is to make Him sad because of conduct unbecoming to a Christian which dishonors Christ (Eph. 4:25-32). Furthermore, to grieve the Spirit by careless insensitivity to His rebuke and guidance is to deprive ourselves of that degree of His power so much needed and which He desires to give. A grieved Holy Spirit is forced to stand on the sidelines of life.

Quenching the Spirit is putting out the fire. The promised baptism with the Spirit included "and fire" (Matt. 3:11); and when He came at Pentecost, it was to the accompaniment of sym­bolic "tongues as of fire" (Acts 2:3, nasb). Some people want the Spirit, but not His fire, and as a consequence they become cold and powerless. Where the Spirit is honored, there will be in­tensity, fervency, emotion, joy. Both the prayers and the preaching will be "hot," animated not with the wildfire of fanaticism but the ener­gizing, purifying, controlled fire of the Spirit.

Trifling and despising are related both in meaning and in biblical context. To experience the awakening and regenerating ministration of the Spirit, then turn away is to trifle with divine grace and expose oneself to final apostasy (Heb. 6:4-6). The language of 10:28-29 is even stron­ger. To turn from Christ back to Moses is to insult the "Spirit of grace" who was the Agent in the Virgin Birth, in the anointing and enabling of Christ in His earthly ministry, and through whom Christ "offered Himself without blemish to God" for our redemption (Heb. 9:14, nasb).

Only the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is specifically designated unforgivable. However, all sins against the Spirit are fatal if persisted in. This is true because in the "economic" roles of the members of the Trinity it is the Spirit with whom the human race is in immediate contact. It is through the Spirit that awakening, repentance, and faith are possible; it is by means of the Spirit that we reach the Son and the Father. To cut our­selves off from the Spirit is to cut ourselves off from God.

Some maintain that even though we do grieve the Spirit, the "seal" remains unbroken; the Spirit



SITUATION ETHICS—SOCIAL ETHICS

489

will never leave the heart in which He has taken up residence. If so, the above warnings are with­out meaning. Sins against the Spirit are sins, and like all other sins bring eternal condemnation unless forsaken and forgiven. As Robert Shank says, "The Holy Comforter cannot continue to dwell in men who close their hearts against His loving ministry" (Life in the Son, 118).

See sin, holy spirit, economic trinity person­ality of the holy spirit, unpardonable sin, seal.

For Further Reading: Shank, Life in the Son, 103-18; Stauffer, "When He Is Come," 170-76; Steele, The Gospel of the Comforter, 232-45, 267-71.

Richard S. Taylor

SITUATION ETHICS. See new morality.

SKEPTICISM. Skepticism is an attitude of doubt and wariness toward dogma. In its milder form it is a safeguard against credulity, but in its more radical forms it denies the possibility of certain knowledge. As a philosophical stance skepticism has its roots in Greek thought; perhaps its most famous modern exponent was David Hume (1711-76).

Skepticism gained prominence in the 17th century as a reaction against the well-meaning Scholasticism which sought to "remove doubt wherever possible" from religion by depending upon reason rather than revelation (Rowen, A History of Early Modern Europe, 600). In this at­tempt the stress was shifted from the faith ele­ment in Christianity to reason; but reason was inadequate to prove miracles and other super­natural aspects of biblical revelation. As a result the pendulum swung to skepticism. Thus the ef­fort to protect religion from doubt by substituting reason for revelation became counterproductive.

While devout Christians may by temperament or on principle be skeptical in scientific and other secondary areas of knowledge, they cannot ad­vertise themselves as skeptics in relation to the core of biblical claims. As an epistemological position skepticism is irreconcilable with Chris­tian theology, which postulates historical verac­ity for the claims of biblical revelation and demands complete and open intellectual com­mitment.

See unbelief, doubt, epistemology, truth, faith.

For Further Reading: Beecher, Lecture on Scepticism; Rowen, History of Early Modern Europe; McDowell, Evi­dence That Demands a Verdict. MERNE A. HARRIS

SLAVE, SLAVERY. The most common NT word for slave is doulos and designates one who is in sub­jection to a master, whether the master be a per­son or a passion or influence. Both John and Paul refer to those who are slaves to sin or to righ­teousness (John 8:34; Rom. 6:16). The writers of the Epistles refer to themselves as christou doulos, Christ's slave (cf. Gal. 1:10; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 1).

Slavery as an institution has existed from an­tiquity. Men were usually enslaved as pun­ishment for misbehavior, as captives in war, or to fill the need for laborers. Aristotle saw all barbar­ians (non-Greeks) as slaves by nature rather than by circumstance. Plato's ideal state was de­pendent upon a large slave class.

The NT does not condemn slavery directly. Rather it accepts slavery as a contemporary social fact but deals with master-slave relationships so as to render slavery meaningless if not un­justifiable. Slaves and masters are brothers. In Christ all are one, there is no bond or free (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 6:9; Philemon).

The Apostolic Church looked upon slaves as brothers and equals. The post-Apostolic Church admitted slaves to all rights of the Church, some becoming priests and even bishops. Church col­lections were often used to purchase freedom for slaves, and the freeing of slaves was considered praiseworthy (Harnack, The Mission and Expan­sion of Christianity, 168-70).

See social ethics, man, brotherhood.

For Further Reading: Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity, 327-51; Maclaren, "Peter," Expositions of Holy Scripture, 215-24.

M. ESTES HANEY

SOCIAL ETHICS. The Christian is always con­cerned with the question, What does God require of me? But he is also confronted with the prob­lem of what society requires. How he reacts to such social requirements in harmony with God's will constitutes the field of social ethics.

Man is by nature a social creature. Everything he does affects others; that is, all his actions have social consequences. And what is right or wrong morally is usually influenced by community standards. Thus man usually acts as a group member and behaves according to what his group approves or disapproves. And when he acts, he is faced with concern for his person-to-person relationships, his relationship to society, and his own personal responsibility in his social behavior.

Christianity is both personal and social. It is impossible to be saintly in isolation. And this personal/social matrix in which we are born and nurtured exhibits several problems which con­front the believer. First of all, there is the tension which exists between the interests of the individ­



490

SOCIAL HOLINESS—SOCIAL WELFARE


ual versus the demands of society or the state. The Christian must decide whether in obeying God he is also right in obeying man, that is, the state. He must render unto Caesar, it is true, but what is Caesar's? God commands us to obey the ordinances of man. Is there any place to draw the line between conformity and nonconformity? This the Christian must face.

A second area of problems concerns man's re­lationship to others, the problem of group deci­sions. Sometimes one must go along with group opinion which is different from his own; some­times one must stick by his own decision when it is contrary to that of his group. Both human wis­dom and the leadership of the Holy Spirit are essential.

A third problem area concerns the relations of group to group. The familiar church and state re­lationship is a good example of this problem. The ecumenical movement to unite denominations into one group is another.

A fourth area of problems lies in the plural na­ture of society. In the Middle Ages the unity of society was effected by the overwhelming influ­ence of the church. Today, religious diversity, ethnic heterogeneity, cultural variety, and the other cultural varieties unloosed by the Renais­sance and the Reformation have made social plu­ralism the character of Western civilization.

All these complexities tend to make social ethics a most difficult area for Christians. Fortu­nately, such need not be the case. The Bible, and particularly the NT, contains teachings which ap­ply to every social situation. The example and teachings of Jesus, the attitude of always consid­ering the good of others, the importance of holy motives for all personal conduct, plus simple faith that one is trying to obey God will make every social decision a moral one. In these condi­tions one can always be right ethically even when judgment is immature or even mistaken.

See CHRISTIAN ETHICS, ETHICS, DUTY, WORK (WORKS), SOCIAL HOLINESS, NONCONFORMITY, WORLD (WORLDLINESS), LIFE-STYLE.

For Further Reading: DeWolf, Responsible Freedom;
Wirt, The Social Conscience of the Evangelical; Muelder,
Moral Law in Christian Social Ethics; Smith, Revivalism
and Social Reform. OTHO JENNINGS

SOCIAL HOLINESS. This is holiness in its inter­personal and societal relationships. When John Wesley said that he knew of no holiness but so­cial holiness, he was repudiating the monastic premise that holiness was possible only in iso­lation, with complete concentration being given to the relation of the soul with its God. This, in

Wesley's view, was a perversion of Christianity, for it completely missed the social emphasis of the Bible. Holiness was possible in the midst of everyday life, including the home, the market­place, and the factory; in fact, holiness which was not practiced in the normal affairs of life was illusory.

Social holiness perceives that Christian love is more than minimal legal righteousness but a practical concern with the total person, and with the social structures which affect the person. Wesley raised money for the poor, found jobs for the unemployed, provided medicine for the sick, started schools for the unlearned, and arranged loans for the destitute. But he also opposed evil systems, such as the institution of slavery.

However, while traditionally holiness people have not minimized the importance of the politi­cal process, their major energies have been ex­pended in evangelism. This reflects their realistic view of human sinfulness, which provides no basis for trust in social reform alone, apart from the sanctifying influences of the gospel.

See SOCIAL ETHICS, HOLINESS, SIN.

For Further Reading: Hopkins, The Rise of the Social
Gospel in American Protestantism from 1865-1915; Mouw,
Political Evangelism; Thompson, John Wesley as a Social
Reformer. Merne A. Harris

SOCIAL WELFARE. The term social welfare is syn­onymous with the term social work when the ref­erence is to functions of federal, state, and local governments. In private and/or religious pro­grams, terms like charity and benevolence are commonly used. So far as publicly supported programs are concerned, there were few exam­ples before the New Deal programs of the 1930s and afterward. But the concept of charity among Christians is as old or older than Christianity it­self.

Traditionally, Christians have been taught to love and care for their families, neighbors, and even strangers. The words of Jesus, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matt. 25:40), are often cited as a principle of charitable consid­eration.

The welfare movement of today has its roots in the Christian concept of charity. The early co­lonists had strong religious influences. The­oretically there should have been affluence enough to care for all the needy. However, the sinful complications of the day plus the growing number of different sects, together with the weaknesses of the religious organizations, soon made their efforts at charity inadequate.



T
SOCINIANISM—SON OF GOD
he result was that the colonies tried various adaptations of the Elizabethan Poor Laws which they had known in England. These programs were administered by the colonial officials in one way or another, and thus became the first exam­ples of public responsibility for social welfare.

Not all social work, however, is accounted for by public funds and agencies. Numerous church auxiliaries, plus parachurch groups, such as World Vision and World Human Fund, dispense money, goods, and services on a huge, world­wide scale. The Salvation Army is famous for its effective social service. Among the nonchurch movements the best known is United Way, spon­sored by community businesses for the support of local charitable agencies.

Since social work/welfare has been defined theoretically as the art of applying professional skill to help people to learn how to help them­selves solve their problems, there is good reason to think that social work at its best should be a Christian service of love to mankind. For this reason there exists an organization known as the National Association of Christians in Social Work. The members are professionals who have dedicated themselves to applying Christian prin­ciples in connection with their work in social welfare.

See SOCIAL HOLINESS, SOCIAL ETHICS, LABOR.

For Further Reading: Geisler, Ethics: Alternatives and
Issues, 178-95. otho jennings

Directory: sites -> default -> files -> publications
publications -> Table of Content forward introduction
publications -> Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies Georgia Institute of Technology
publications -> Housing Counseling Research in Chicago
publications -> Communicating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Audiences
publications -> New Brunswick Info Sheet on First Nations Child Welfare
publications -> Paap’s Electronic Newsletter 14 November 2008 Volume 11 Number 22 towards ‘smart’ subsidies in agriculture: lessons from recent experience in malawi
publications -> Information support of pedagogical process for the children experiencing difficulties with acquisition of preschool educational programs
publications -> Asus’ ZenFone ar has Google’s augmentted and virtual reality baked in — but not combined
publications -> School Readiness and Early Grade Success Consultation Memo Atlanta, ga

Download 6.66 Mb.

Share with your friends: