Written by Ryan M. McGraw |
Thursday, April 14, 2022
The Bible teaches that sin is our fault, not God’s. While God is in control of every detail of this evil world (Isa. 45:7), He can neither sin nor be tempted by sin (James 1:13). The Westminster Larger Catechism reminds us of three biblical truths about the fall: (1) Adam and Eve could and did fall; (2) this came through Satan tempting them; and (3) they destroyed themselves by it.

Everyone is aware that we live in a sinful world, though not all people recognize that sin is the culprit. Sin shows its effects in the moral evils we see in society, and sin results in “natural evil” in the afflictions and miseries of this life. In light of these unmistakable facts of life, unbelievers often deny that God exists, or that sin exists, or both. Yet even when they ask how a good God could allow evil in this world, they assume that good exists, an assumption that is the backdrop against which we understand sin in the first place.1 This question and related assumption will either drive us back to the good God, who is good and does good (Ps. 119:68) and who is the fountain of goodness, or it will drive us to deny both God and ultimately good and evil. Yet evil still troubles us, and neither the Christian nor the atheist is comfortable living in a world full of evil.

The Bible says that sin and the evil resulting from it came into the world through humanity—through Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:1–7). It describes their alienation from God, which was death to their souls, and the effects of sin in this life (Gen. 3:8–23). It clearly reveals that sin deserves God’s wrath and curse (Gen. 6:5–8), making Noah’s flood an object lesson of the wrath to come (2 Peter 3:1–7). Ecclesiastes 7:29 says simply, “God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” Adam fell from innocence, broke the covenant, and ruined mankind. Westminster Larger Catechism 21–23 summarizes this truth by stating the fact of the fall, its scope, and its effects. In this article, I will focus on the fact of the fall, leaving its effects for later essays. Understanding the fact of the fall is important because it shows us that our real need is not freedom from affliction, but reconciliation to God in Christ.
The Fall into Sin is a Fact
Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they were created. (WLC 21)
The Bible teaches that sin is our fault, not God’s. While God is in control of every detail of this evil world (Isa. 45:7), He can neither sin nor be tempted by sin (James 1:13). The Westminster Larger Catechism reminds us of three biblical truths about the fall: (1) Adam and Eve could and did fall; (2) this came through Satan tempting them; and (3) they destroyed themselves by it.
First, God left our first parents to the freedom of their own wills. Only God is unchangeable and unchanging (Mal. 3:6). All other things are changeable, including human beings. While we do not know how a good creature with a good heart could desire evil instead of good, we know that the good hearts of these good creatures did change to prefer evil. No one compelled them, not even God, to follow their own wills instead of His.
Second, Satan tempted them to trust themselves and his word over God and His Word. God told them that they would die (Gen. 2:16); Satan told them they would not die (Gen. 3:4). God had already made them like Himself in His own righteous image (Gen. 1:27); Satan told them that they would become like God through sin (Gen. 3:5). By rejecting God’s prohibition to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they put their faith in Satan’s word instead of God’s.2

Read More

If we are calling for an apology but we all know that apology will only lead to further calls for greater sanctions, who is going to apologise? Particularly, it bears saying, who is going to apologise if they are only tangentially related? Even if an apology might be well received, or helpful in some way, if they know they will be implicated (especially if deeply unfairly so) why would they raise their head above the parapet?

Scandals in the church seem to happen with far greater frequency than any of us think they should or wish they did. There is something of a well worn path that follows now too. Usually starting with a bit of distancing between people and/or organisations that are clearly, if not actually and directly linked, certainly relationally so. What then follows is often a refusal to just say sorry.
Yesterday, Michael Tinker wrote a blog post making just this point. You can read that here. What I’m about to say is not to disagree with what he wrote. I think the point he makes is quite right. When organisations are rocked by scandals, when they had some level of involvement such that they could have addressed matters, the right thing to do is just say sorry. Sometimes there are others linked in such a way that may require apologies from them too. My purpose in writing this is to press a little further and ask, are there reasons why the elusive sorry is rarely forthcoming? I think there are.
For one, an organisation needs to be clear what it is sorry about. If an individual is caught in a scandal within an organisation and those very organisational structures allowed it to happen, that would be a solid reason for the organisation at large to apologise. Or, perhaps people within the organisation raised the alarm and were subsequently ignored. Being sorry for that seems entirely right. The problem is when we start dealing with relationally linked but technically separate groups or groups even further removed from matters than that.
What, exactly, is an organisation that isn’t directly involved – but clearly has some relational links with those involved – supposed to say sorry for? Sorry we knew the person at the centre of the matter but had no jurisdiction over them? Sorry we worked with them, not knowing anything about the matters that have come to light, but nevertheless sorry anyway? The further the degree of separation – even if we can draw some relational lines – the harder it becomes to know what these other groups and individuals are meant to say sorry for. I suspect, some of the time, that is why they don’t say it. They just don’t know exactly what they are meant to apologise for.
Some insist that as believers we should be clear that all of us are sinners and will therefore err but all of us have received grace and therefore should extend it in the face of repentance. This is Christianity 101. We all sin, we all need forgiveness, therefore confess your sin and receive grace. Why on earth, we may wonder, would a Christian person or organisation not be willing to say sorry or admit fault when that is the case?
I think, if we are honest, we know the answer. Just as organisations and individuals are fallible and may sin, organisations and individuals are fallible and therefore are often less than willing to show grace. Just as the well-worn path of foot-shuffling and buck-passing has been seen enough to know that sorrys aren’t forthcoming, we have also trod this path long enough to know that if and when they do come grace is rarely extended.
Sorry, as we know, is an admission of guilt. Once we have it, let’s be honest, matters rarely stop there. Demands for a mere sorry – and incredulous claims as to why we didn’t get an apology when that is all we want – are either naïve or disingenuous. Because what most want is not a mere sorry, but the extraction of an apology as an admission of guilt from which a series of retributive actions can then be established. I don’t presume any and all people ever asking for an apology are saying or thinking this, but enough instances have occurred for us to see that it is often so. I am left wondering why those who can rightly see so clearly that if sinners will sin they may well sin further by not confessing their sin and apologising cannot similarly see that if sinners will sin those who are supposed to confer forgiveness don’t always appear very forgiving when faced with contrition.
Read More
Related Posts:

Moses’s sin and mortality made it so he could not finish the job he had spent most of the latter years of his life working toward. We are not all that different. The Lord has given us all work to do in this life and for his Kingdom. Though we may all do a decent job sometimes, we all struggle with our own sinfulness. And even though we are justified in Christ Jesus, we too will someday face death.

God’s promises to Moses came true, but only after his death. This truth should encourage us because God’s promises to us do not die when we die. Joshua chapter one opens by telling us that Moses was dead and Joshua was to take over and lead the people into the promised land. Moses had worked for 40-plus years leading the people. The Lord had even promised Moses that the people would enter their rest, but Moses never saw it.
Through the work of the Lord, Moses’s leadership was awe-inspiring, and he was extremely humble on top of it all. However, one day, he sinned against the Lord and struck the rock instead of speaking to it so that the Lord could provide water for his people. It may seem like a little thing to us, but it was a direct affront to God. Because of this, God said Moses would not go into the land with the people.
Read More
Related Posts: