A Problem Of The Heart

A HEART PROBLEM __________________ A Paper Presented to Dr. Michael Whitlock The College at Southwestern

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for THE3203-B

__________________

by Wes Terry April 27, 2009

A HEART PROBLEM Closely connected to the doctrine of humanity is the doctrine of sin. The doctrine of sin is also interrelated to several other fields of theology such as theology proper, soteriology, and ecclesiology. One’s belief about the origin and transmission of sin, its effects on humanity, and how one’s sinful condition is remedied is a centerpiece to how one understands other doctrines. Although the doctrine of sin is important and relevant, there are few today who, outside of academic circles, are open to a meaningful and honest discourse on the subject. The very word “sin” has become somewhat of a taboo; and, in an age of that seeks to redefine or eradicate morality, a conversation about the source of sin has been rejected. Therefore, the following, seeking to reignite a discourse on the source of sin, will illustrate that all sin flows from the heart and that the failure to address sin at that level will have devastating consequences for every level of society. A Survey of the Source of Sin Historically, it has been generally affirmed that the source of sin is in the heart. This assertion has been made in Scripture by a variety of biblical authors. According to Moses, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”1 (Genesis 6:5) King David instructed his readers to, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” (Proverbs 4:23) Or, in the words of Jesus, “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, 1 All Scripture quotations will be taken from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted. 2

3 murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” (Matthew 15:18-19) Other Scriptures, attesting to the current condition of the human heart, also show that the heart is the source of sin. Jeremiah explained that, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) So, not only is the heart desperately sick and the source of sin, but man cannot even fully comprehend the magnitude of his handicap. Defining the Terms Despite Jeremiah’s statement that man cannot fully understand the condition of the human heart, a defining of terms is still necessary. Therefore, a definition for the heart and for sin will be given. Anthony Hoekema submits that the heart is “a description of the inner core of the person; the ‘organ’ of thinking, feeling, and willing; the point of concentration of all of our functions.”2 Pascal described the heart as the intuitive mind which perceives of and hopes in God by faith; it is the source of human volition.3 These definitions should suffice for the purposes of this discussion. However, the definition of sin needs a little more clarity. Several definitions will be explained in hopes of achieving a correct understanding. Hoekema defines sin as “a defect in something that is good… like the blindness that robs a previously sighted person of his or her sight.”4 Sin has not necessarily changed who human beings are in their essence. Rather, it has changed their ability to live out their humanity as they ought. In other words, mankind still maintains the image of God but sin has damaged man’s ability to image God correctly. Sin has not 2

Anthony Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Grand Grapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 172. 3

Pascal, Blaise, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 228. 4

Ibid., Pg 169.

4 brought about a race of men less than human; it has just thwarted man’s utility so that he functions wrongly. Also, sin does not exist as a power in and of itself. Rather, sin only has its existence in relation to God’s moral will. R. Stanton Norman submits that, “a biblical definition of sin can only be understood in relationship with God. Although having moral and social implications, sin is basically an affront against the person of God.”5 To summarize, although sin has no essence outside of the moral will of God, it manifests itself in humanity at every level of his being and thus prevents him from treasuring God as he ought to be treasured. The human heart is the well-spring of this handicap and for one to be freed from the prison of sin, he must receive a new heart. The word received is used because according to the Bible, man cannot create a new heart in and of himself. Man cannot cure himself of his blindness. He must have someone else cure his heart condition; he must have someone else give sight to his blind eyes.6 The power of sin is rooted deep within one’s heart, damaging the totality of one’s being. Likewise, the solution to sin can only be found in the healing, restorative, power of Christ. The Heart as the Spring of Life Because sin finds its source in the heart and the heart is the well-spring of life, the problem of sin is pervasive. The fact that sin is so pervasive has led some to consider humanity as “totally depraved.” Wayne House explains the Calvinist persuasion this way. “The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is sinful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore he 5

R. Stanton Norman, "Human Sinfulness," in A Theology for the Church, ed. Akin, Danny (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Academic, 2007), 450. 6

Henry Brandt and Kerry L. Skinner, Breaking Free From the Bondage of Sin (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1994), 68.

5 will not – indeed he cannot – choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.”7 Hoekema, distinguishing between the structural and functional elements of the image of God, states that “fallen human beings still possess the gifts and capacities with which God has endowed them, but they now use these gifts in sinful and disobedient ways.”8 Given this nuance, Hoekema rejects the term “total depravity” and chooses instead the term “pervasive depravity.” While man is spiritually incapable of doing anything meritorious of salvation, the structural elements of his human essence have been maintained.9 In other words, the structure of the human heart is preserved. The heart is still able to serve as that which gives life to the rest of human nature: not only in the physical sense but also in the metaphysical realm of the emotions, one’s affections, the intellect, and the will. However, the heart functions incorrectly. It feels, loves, thinks, and chooses wrongly. Though the image of God in man is not destroyed, sin has greatly damaged it. As Calvin wrote, “Although there is a residue of intelligence and judgment as well as will, a mind which is weak and darkened cannot be called sound and whole… it did not perish, but became so bound by depraved lusts as to be incapable of worthy desires.”10 Or, as Pascal wrote, “It is natural for the heart to love the universal being or itself, according to its allegiance, and it hardens itself against either as it chooses. You have rejected one and kept the other.”11 Calvin might disagree with Pascal’s assertion that the heart “chooses” to love something other than God but, despite the cause, the result is still 7 Wayne H. House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 99. 8

Anthony Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Grand Grapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 72. 9

Ibid., Pg 150.

10

Calvin, John, The Institutes of Christian Religion, ed. Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 92.

6 the same. Man, because of his corrupt heart, loves Gods wrongly. Because of his sin nature, mankind attributes his affections to himself rather than his Creator. It Came From Within Both Calvin and Pascal show that sin, as it has been described above, is not a separate force outside of man; as if man were more morally inculpable. Instead, they show that the source of sin comes from within man, and that this internal corruption has resulted in man choosing to love himself and his desires rather than God and his purposes. As Augustine wrote, “I loved to excuse myself and to accuse some other mysterious ‘thing’ inside me that was disconnected from the real me. In truth it was wholly me and my wicked heart that divided me from myself.”12 Sin has no ontological essence. However, it does have ontological consequences: especially on the heart. Ever since the fall, man’s heart has existed estranged from God and entangled in sin. Though modern scholarship seeks to redefine and excuse human sinfulness, the corrupt human heart will continue to show why the Bible is correct in affirming the consequences of man’s rebellion against God. In the words of G.K Chesterton, “Certain new theologians dispute Original Sin, which is the only part of Christian theology that can really be proved.”13 Sin is the one element of Christian doctrine that needs no proof. One does not have to look far to see the effects that sin has had on the world. It has split up families and churches, it has ruined successful careers, it has subjected the creation to

11

Pascal, Blaise, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 231. 12

Emphasis added. Augustine, The Confessions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,

2005), 83. 13

Chesterton, G.K, Orthodoxy, ed. Craig M. Kibler (Lenoir: Reformation Press,

2002), 33.

7 futility, it has strained every human relationship, and it has infiltrated every level of society. Eliminating the word sin from the human vocabulary will not change the nature of sin, nor will it cure the condition of the human heart. As Stanton Norman writes, “We deceive ourselves if we believe that we can either minimize or eliminate the reality of sin simply by ignoring it or changing its name. Redefinitions or misunderstandings about sin do not lessen our accountability.”14 In fact, such efforts could themselves be considered sinful. At the very least they are extremely ignorant of the available datum. The problem of sin is the starting point for the strongest saints and for the staunchest skeptics. Yet, modern man just dismisses both options. They rest in the flux of ignorance. Again, Chesterton explains it well. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.15 Yet, it is highly irrational to deny the existence of the cat! Sin cannot be ignored just because its implications are offensive to the human psyche and insinuate the existence of a holy God with moral mandates. These are not satisfactory reasons, nor will they remove the present reality of such a God. Reality is reality whether one comes to terms with it or not. Therefore, sin must be reckoned with. Sin must once again be understood and talked about. The consequences of non-discourse are far too great to dismiss as irrelevant.

14

R. Stanton Norman, "Human Sinfulness," in A Theology for the Church, ed. Akin, Danny (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Academic, 2007), 410. 15

Chesterton, G.K, Orthodoxy, ed. Craig M. Kibler (Lenoir: Reformation Press,

2002), 33.

8 The Consequence of Non-Discourse Only one question remains. Why is there no honest discussion over the source and consequences of sin? Perhaps this is because there is so much concern over creating environments where modern man feels good about himself. This “positive thinking” mentality has also plagued the Church. All too often Christians, instead of addressing sin at its source, only disguise it with psychotherapy and pharmaceuticals. This is not to say that medicines and therapy are unnecessary. However, such methods need to be evaluated as to whether or not they are the best means of addressing a person’s sin problem. In most cases, (outside of mental illness) those methods are not.16 When psychology and drugs become the primary means of addressing human sinfulness because the concept of sin as a spiritual issue is all of a sudden uncomfortable and unpopular, a dramatic shift in morality will take place in the culture. A discussion of sin is not helpful for one who wants to see himself as “basically good.” In fact, one’s badness should instead be ignored. C.S. Lewis illustrates, “When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is left in him. When a man is getting worse he understands his badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right.”17 According to Lewis, the more one ignores his badness the better he will feel about himself. Therefore, a culture of thoroughly bad men who choose to remain ignorant of their badness, will see themselves as quite alright. Morality will take on a whole new definition. This is how and why American culture has suffered from a slow erosion of moral absolutes. Without an acknowledgement of sin, there is subsequently no faith in a 16

Henry R. Brandt and Kerry L. Skinner, Breaking Free From the Bondage of SIn (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1994), 92. 17

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1980),

93.

9 standard of perfection. Without a vision for morality, the culture is left to relativism and subjectivism. There is no objective truth to inform morality. The human heart, in is sickened condition, excuses itself for its corruption by explaining away what corruption means. This is what happens when a culture fails to discuss sin at its source. However, moral relativism is also present in the Christian community. Author David Wells explains that when it comes to a correct understanding of sin, the Church is just as lost as the rest of humanity. He further attests that if the Church fails to recover a correct understanding of sin “evangelical faith would lose – if it has not already lost – its moral pungency and its spiritual authenticity.”18 The Apostle John would say that the Church has “deceived” herself and that the truth is not in her. (1 John1:8-9) Deception might be excusable for a person who does not know Christ. However, it is inexcusable for the Christian. Likewise, it is inexcusable for the Christian community to stand by as the culture around her self-destructs due to its ignorance. Author Os Guinness illustrates this point quite vividly. With the following words Guinness describes the condition of a culture which has lost its vision of morality. “Each transgression serves as the permission and the dare to press on to the next. The result is an entire society following the addict’s piecemeal slide into bondage and a civilization’s descent into decay.”19 It is the Christian’s unique responsibility to pull the culture out of her decay and lead to men towards a correct understanding of the truth. In the prophetic words of Francis Schaffer, “Each generation of the Church in each setting has the responsibility of communicating the Gospel in understandable terms, considering the language and thought forms of that 18

David F. Wells, Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover its Moral Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 4. 19

Os Guinness, Unspeakable: Facing Up to the Challenge of Evil (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006), 104.

10 setting.”20 Schaffer points out that every generation has an evangelistic mandate to take the steps necessary to engage their culture with the truth of the Gospel. Before this can take place, the Church must hold an orthodox position on the doctrine of sin. If not, the Church cannot correctly communicate the Gospel: especially in a postmodern culture. The Church must regain a position that sees the heart as the source of sin. Additionally, it must see Christ as the only one able to renew man’s heart and remedy the problem of human sinfulness. There is a great need to reignite a discussion over the condition of the human heart. The culture needs it, the Church needs it, and, without an honest discussion over sin, both will self-destruct. Fortunately, Christ promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church and so it is time for Christians to rise to the occasion. Conclusion In conclusion, a few things will be reiterated. First, the human heart is in bad shape morally; and, since the heart is the wellspring of life, all sin flows from it. Second, there is only one man who is able and willing to cure the human heart and that person is the God-man Jesus Christ. Third, Christ will only cure the heart of those who own up to their sin and trust him to cleanse their heart. Fourth, repentance and confession will never happen apart from a correct, biblically faithful, understanding of human sinfulness. Fifth, a correct understanding of human sinfulness will not be available if there is not a resurgence of honest discussion over the source of human sinfulness. Therefore, the Christian must equip himself with the resources necessary to engage in conversation that will help bring a decaying culture out of her despair. Only the Christian is uniquely equipped to do this. Only the Christian understands truly what constitutes sin and from 20

Francis Schaeffer, The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (Wheaton: Crossway,

1990), 270.

11 where it originates. Where are these believers today? More importantly, are they being heard? May God grant it so.

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY Augustine. The Confessions. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005. Brandt, Henry and Kerry L. Skinner. Breaking Free From the Bondage of Sin. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1994. Calvin, John. The Institues of Christian Religion. Edited by Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Chesterton, G.K. Orthodoxy. Edited by Craig M. KIbler. Lenoir: Reformation Press, 2002. Guinness, Os. Unspeakable: Facing Up to the Challenge of Evil. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006. Hoekema, Anthony. Created in God's Image. Grand Grapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986. House, Wayne H. Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1980. Norman, Stanton R. "Human Sinfulness." In A Theology for the Church, ed. Akin, Danny, 409-478. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Academic, 2007. Pascal, Blaise. Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees. Edited by Peter Kreeft. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993. Schaffer, Francis. The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: The Three Essential Books in One Volume. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990. Wells, David F. Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover its Moral Vision. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.