Doctrine Of Sin Essays Examples

The origin of sin has been a major concern in theology. Several authors have displayed concerted efforts in explaining the actual origin of sin. The said authors have gone further to connect the relationship between the mankind and the origin of the sin. Charles Ryrie and Augustus Strong have established the fact that the sins are transferable from one generation to another. According Charles, the human race inherited the sins committed by Adam and Eve. Similarly, Strong argues that Jesus Christ inherited the mankind sin the time He joined himself to humanity. The two other authors have provided descending views on the justification of transfer of sin from one person to another. Also, the authors failed to agree on justification to punish an innocent being for crime committed by another person. Strong has come out strongly to indicate disconnection between the guilt and personal sin. Charles, on the other hand, argued that personal sin can lead to guilt. Prevalently, all the others unanimously agree that all forms of sins attract a given punishment from God. Strong pointed out that God is so just that He cannot let any form of sin to go unpunished. The paper seeks to compare and contrast Charles and Strong view on the doctrine of sin.
Charles gives a vivid explanation of the origin of sin. According to the author, God cannot commit any sin but permits sin to enter the world with the view of sending Jesus Christ to save the world from the sins of mankind. The final death of Jesus Christ clearly revealed that Jesus died to set the human beings free from the imputed sin. The author defines the imputed sin as a sin brought about by Adam and Eve. Immediately, the infant is born he/she inherited the Adam’s sin, Jesus was, therefore, sent to deliver the mankind from imputed sin. Charles espouses the fact that sin originated from Satan and Adam. The author argues that despite Jesus Christ inheriting the sins committed by Adam, human kind are still liable for personal sins (Ryrie n.p). A notable point is that personal sin is a crime or rather a sin committed by individuals when they engage in the wrong doing. God provided the Ten Commandments, and if an individual disregards any commandment then he/she will be committing personal sin. Since guilt is brought about by going against the set law, the author ascertains that there is a connection between guilt and personal sin. He, therefore, believed that Jesus Christ was not guilty because He rescued mankind from imputed sin, not personal sin.
Charles also discussed deeply on the sin nature. He defines the sin nature as the ability or rather the ability of mankind to engage in things that do not please God. The mentioned sin put a gap between God and mankind. The author went further to explain that the sin nature is transferable from parents to children. Though children are innocent in this case but the mentioned sin is transferable to them. The author comments that the punishment of such a crime is spiritual death and total depravity (Ryrie 38). The best way for human kind to avoid sin of nature is what pleases God.
Strong supports findings of Charles on the origin of the sin. Strong believes that humankind became sinners because of the crime committed by the Adam (Zackrison 233). The author agrees that imputed sin exist, and death of Christ was to save the mankind. Despite the mentioned similarity, Strong argues that there is no connection between guilt and personal sin. The author breaks the guilt into two perspective; true guilt and false guilt. True guilt is the guilt committed by not obeying the law while false guilt is committed by imagining to have committed an offense. Strong, therefore, argues that Jesus Christ was guilty in away because He had inherited the sin of the mankind. The author supports his sentiments by pointing out that when Christ joined the humanity He solely become liable and guilt for the sins of the mankind. According to the author the Christ had inherited guilt and penalty that belongs to the mankind. The author, therefore, argue that it was in order for Jesus Christ to die because He was the penalty owner for mankind’s sin.
Strong, noted the fact that sin of nature exist and the principality for sins to be transferred from parents to children. The author points that there is a problem when God permits an innocent soul to be punished by sparing the guilty (Zackrison 49). For instance, a child can be innocent but may be punished for the crime committed by the parents. He claims that the remedy for the challenge perfectly lies in the union between Christ and humanity. When Christ, though innocent, took responsibility to perish for mankind sin, He created a challenge for other mankind to transfer sins to the innocent.
On the issue of the whether the Christ is guilty or not, I agree with Charles. Inheritance of mankind sin does not make the Christ guilty. The major cause of guilt is when an individual disregard the set law or go against the God’s commandment. Jesus Christ in this scenario did not commit any crime but only intended to save the mankind from imputed sin. Similarly, on the issue of punishment of the innocent, since Jesus himself died because of our sins then humankind should also be ready to inherit and confess for the sins committed by others

Works cited

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. USA: Moody Publishers, 2007.
Ryrie, Charles C. A survey of Bible doctrine. USA: Moody Publishers, 1989.
Zackrison, Edwin. In the Loins of Adam: A Historical Study of Original Sin in Adventist Theology. USA: iUniverse, 2004.
.