Where Did the Desire to Sin Come From?

One of our own was asked this question by a skeptic on an airplane recently, and the answer was not immediately obvious. It's actually a profound question.

We know that sin, as such, does not exist as its own substance. Sin is the absence of something, the vandalization of something, but not its own something. Sin is the absence of good, the act of taking something good and twisting it, profaning it, or otherwise rendering it imperfect. Satan was created completely good, but then twisted himself by trying to make himself equal with God. Adam and Eve were created good, bearing the image of God, but violated God's express will and damaged (but not destroyed) the image of God they bore. Everything that departs from God's perfection is sin.

But this doesn't address the question that was asked. Where did the desire to sin come from?

If Satan was good before sinning, then desiring to sin would be sinful, wouldn't it? If Adam and Eve were really created good, then why would they ever desire to depart from God's express will? Jesus was tempted in every way we are, and yet was without sin - but did He desire to sin?

They were all given the freedom to make choices, and sin was inevitable for mankind, but that doesn't explain where the desire to sin came from. The mere existence of choice does not create desire.

So what I'm going to do with this post is to throw it out there and see what you think. Please feel free to add your own comments as to where you think the desire to sin came from in beings that were sinless at one time.

(All I ask is that you show respect for everyone, that you not become argumentative, that you not criticize anyone else's idea, and that you post only one time. Consider this a survey, not a debate.)

If you'd rather not post your idea publicly, then send me an email.

I'll let this run a week or two, and then summarize my thoughts on the matter.

Keeping Focused

DBC had a really good contingent of folks attending the Worldview Weekend Code Blue Rally a couple of Saturdays ago. This is a nationwide tour of Christian speakers who teach about worldview and how to engage people in a discussion about the Christian worldview.

Afterwards, Tim Bryarly, Lynne, and I got into a discussion about the presentations, what we liked, what we didn't like, what we agreed with, what we didn't agree with. All in all, we liked the speakers and the presentations, but we each had our pockets of disagreement with each speaker. And that's healthy - we shouldn't just swallow everything a Christian speaker says, but weigh everything against Scripture, be informed of the various views, and submit our opinion to what we believe God has to say on the matter.

In our discussion, we talked about the issue of Creationism, and one important point came to mind. Clearly, the debate between Creationism and Secular Evolutionism is centered on whether the universe began to exist by the willful act of a Creator or by an accidental (i.e., unplanned) chain reaction of natural events.

But notice what the core of the debate is not about.

This particular debate is not the existence of God ... not really. Clearly, the creationist argues for the existence of a Creator, and often call this Creator "God." But the evolutionary model does not require the non-existence of God (even though most evolutionists hold that view). One could be a deist (believing that God does exist) and still hold to a completely naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe.

Neither is this debate about the age of the universe ... not really. There are creationists who hold to a "young earth" view, that the universe is somewhere between 6000 and 20,000 years old. There are other creationists who hold an "old earth" view, usually saying that the universe is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 billion years old. But both camps are creationists - they believe that God created all of this out of nothing by his will. In many cases, advocates from both views are Bible-believing folks who say that Genesis accurately records Creation, and that the species came about by God's creation, rather than some form of macro-evolution. Both can rationally hold that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

This post is not to argue old earth vs. young earth, or to defend the biblical merit of either view. I have opinions on the matter, but to discuss them here would miss the point.

My point is this: When we are engaging the world about the issue of Creation, we should focus on what this debate is really about - whether or not a Creator created the universe. That's the main issue of this particular debate. We should keep the conversation on that point and not get distracted by what is not essential to this issue.

For example, if we debate with an evolutionist that they should not only adopt a creationist view, but a "young earth" creationist view, we are confusing the issue. What they first need to accept is that the Creator created. That's an essential factor of faith. Hebrews 11:3 says, "By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God’s command, so that the visible has its origin in the invisible." There's nothing here that requires us to believe that the universe is a particular age. The age question is secondary to the fact of Creation.

Someone can have the wrong opinion of the age of the universe and still be a vibrant Christian. But no one can believe that God doesn't exist and be a vibrant Christian. And no one can believe much of what Jesus said if they don't believe that God created everything, because Jesus' teachings rely completely on the fact that God is Creator, Sustainer, Provider, and Savior.

We can have the internal debates about the age of the universe for academic reasons, but when we openly bicker before the unbelieving world or when we make the secondary issues the litmus test of Christianity, we are putting up barriers between the lost and the Savior.

Keep focused on the essentials of Christianity when talking to the unsaved. Those are the truths that will transform their souls.

Code Blue!

On Saturday, February 28, Worldview Weekend is hosting an event called "Code Blue." Normally when I get notices for events, I don't pay them much attention - they are usually good events, but there are so many of them, they make my head spin. However, this event has me excited!

One of the speakers will be Dr. Norm Geisler, one of the most intriguing Christian thinkers today. I have several books by Dr. Geisler, and he stands above the crowd. Some his titles include: When Skeptics Ask, Why I am a Christian, and Christian Apologetics. I would pay good money and drive a few hours to hear him speak, and he's going to be in Macon at a free event. This is a great opportunity to hear one of the more influential Christian apologists in our nation.

Betty Ann also notes that another speaker on the docket, Brannon Howse, is an excellent speaker. I'm not familiar with him, but he sounds like he's worth the trip all by himself.

The event is free, but you need to pre-register in order to get tickets. You can do that online. If you want to carpool, let me know and I'll help organize that (or find some wonderful person who would like to coordinate that).

You can read all about it and register at http://www.codebluerally.com.

Showing That God Exists Without Using the Bible

The Youth have been studying the book of Acts on Wednesday nights, seeing over and over again how much believers can accomplish when they just have confidence that God's Word is true and that the Holy Spirit will actively build the Church. This week, we were in the second part of chapter 17, where Paul is in Athens (the other Athens) engaging the philosophers on Mars Hill (also called the "Areopagus"). Paul knew that his normal message of how Jesus is the Messiah anticipated in the Old Testament would not work on these philosophers who knew little to nothing about the Old Testament. Instead, Paul preaches the same Gospel, but in a completely different way - in a way that did not refer to the Old Testament at all.

Discussing this passage, the students thought about ways to present the Gospel today without referring to the Bible specifically - which we need to know how to do in an age when the Bible is not universally regarded. There have been volumes written on how to do this - there are even writings from before Christ on how to demonstrate that God exists without using the Scriptures as proof.

Below is a quick summary of one such argument. Space does not allow a full explanation of this approach, but a summary will still give you a good idea of how the argument goes. Just like Paul's approach in Athens 2000 years ago, the approach starts with statements that the audience will readily agree with. Each step, however, should be discussed in much more detail when sharing this with others.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. At the beginning of the universe, matter, energy and time also began.
5. Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be comprised of matter or energy, and cannot be bound within time.
6. The universe bears evidence of design (this statement needs a lot of explanation for skeptics)
7. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be intelligent.
8. The existence of the universe is not necessary (it could have been the case that the universe never came into existence).
9. Therefore, the cause of the universe must have a will.
10. The universe exhibits beauty (ahthough beauty is subjective and could be accidental).
11. Therefore, it is likely that the cause of the universe appreciates beauty.
12. Since the cause of the universe has intelligence, a will, and likely emotions, the cause of the universe is a Being with personhood.
13. Also from evidence of the universe, we can discern that this Being is very powerful (or even omnipotent), very large (or even omnipresent), and very intelligent (or even omniscient).

So far, we have established that a Being (whom we can call "God") exists. We haven't proven it beyond all possible doubt, but at least we have shown that believe in the existence of God is rational. We have not shown, however, anything about Jesus or His Gospel.

1. The universe is finely tuned to allow life to exist (there is a lot of evidence to support this, which may be necessary to reference).
2. Therefore, God demonstrates care and concern for living creatures.
3. The basic human condition includes struggles with the existence of evil and the reality of death.
4. The nature of the universe suggests that God would be aware of man's basic condition, and furthermore, would have care and concern for it.
5. Question: Based on what we can tell about God from the universe, would you think that He would be the kind of God who would do nothing about man's basic condition, or would He be the kind of God who would do something? (If they say "nothing", then you may have to continue on the assumption that He would do something.)
6. Explore the major world religions with the one you're talking to and openly discuss which of these most effectively deals with man's basic condition. (Christianity is the only religion that offers a complete solution that fits with all we've discussed so far.)

If you can successfully walk someone through to this point, then the next step is crucial. People won't likely believe in Christ because they feel worked into a philosophical corner. So, we don't want to badger them into trying to make a decision. Simply tell them, "All we've done so far is to show that belief in Jesus is rational. So, let's conduct a spiritual experiment. Live life for the next month on the assumption that this is all true - just as an experiment. Do everything under the assumption that Jesus is who the Bible claims - follow the ways of righteousness, pray (even if you're praying to a God you don't fully believe in, yet), confess and repent, and so on. Experimentally live as you would if you knew for sure all this was true - and then after a month, assess whether or not you want to seriously explore the claims of Christ."

This is a lot fo information, and I don't expect you to absorb all of it at once. Rather, save this article and become familiar with the basic points, and when you find opportunities, explore one or two items with someone in conversation. When you become more and more familiar with the concepts, you'll find that you can talk with people about the God who exists without being preachy or pushy.

(Thanks to Dr. Doug Geivett for the idea of the "spiritual experiment".)