Dear Editor,
I feel compelled to write to say how much I learned from Matthew Mason’s article ‘What does it mean to be sinners?’ in your April edition.
I thought this was one of the best articles I have read in en for some time.
Biblical, clear, and citing works from a variety of well-respected older sources, this brought a vital subject to life. Thank you!
The article seems to be part of a series. Another instalment about the ‘so what?’ aspect would be really useful. Can Christians do anything good as a result of this teaching, or is our best just ‘splendid sins’? I think I know the answer already, but I would love to read Matthew’s thoughts about this.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Jackson
Bristol
__________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Editor,
Matthew Mason argues that his description of what it means for human beings to be sinners is both clearly what the Bible teaches, and ‘The Evangelical view of sin’.
He does not present the views of Evangelical Biblical scholars who would disagree with his account of ‘original sin’, such as John Walton or N.T. Wright. Indeed some might argue that Mason’s account is derived from Plato as much as from the Bible, and is inherently dualistic as a result, with the result that the gospel becomes a way of escaping this corrupted world to be able to go to heaven.
In contrast, the Bible seems to insist that God is faithful to His promises to humanity to restore this creation with humanity as God’s partners and representatives. Jesus as the new Adam then gives us new hearts on this Earth so that we can begin the process of restoration. Mason’s account is prone to being individualistic and moralising, whilst the Biblical portrait of sin is of the failure to love our fellow humanity as we ought, abusing power, and mistreating people as we fail to follow our Creator.
The first use of the word sin in the Bible is to warn Cain that sin is crouching at his door. It seems that Cain is being presented with a choice, like Adam and Eve, and has the option not to kill his brother. In Christ, we still have this choice, and the parable of the two brothers shows that rather than harbouring anger and resentment against our fellow humans, we are to love and welcome them.
The gospel is the good news that Christ is Lord, and we are called to follow Him, which means loving God and our neighbours on this Earth in the present, with the promise of a complete restoration in the future. This account is held by reputable Biblical scholars, and it does a disservice to the unity of the church to implicitly suggest that such teaching is heresy.
Yours sincerely,
James May
London
Matthew Mason replies:
Readers will be relieved to know that I think we’re to love God and our neighbours in this life and the next (see my article on love in en, July 2023). The doctrine of original sin doesn’t contradict this, and is well-established as making compelling sense of the Bible and our lives as sinners in need of Christ. The tragic history of Cain and Abel illustrates original sin, as it shows that even before the word ‘sin’ is used, the reality of sin – unrighteous anger, the seed of murder – had already arisen in Cain’s corrupt heart (4:5-6).
Alas, one can find evangelical scholars disputing almost any settled evangelical doctrine. In the case of original sin, the great Protestant confessions of faith uniformly teach it, and their teaching has greater authority under Scripture than any individual Christian or scholar. It’s far more damaging to the church’s unity to deny the confessional consensus than it is to articulate it. But I’ll let my article, with its extensive reference to Scripture, speak for itself. Further, and better, insight can be found in the recommended reading at the end of the article.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Editor,
I found Matthew Mason’s article in the April issue of en on what it means for humans to be sinners extremely helpful, especially his remarks on concupiscence.
But it raises a question concerning Hebrews 4:15 and the sinlessness of Jesus that I have never been able to resolve. If concupiscence is sinful in itself, then it would seem that Jesus did not have it. In that case, how can He be tempted in every respect as we are?
I find this especially acute given that our most difficult temptations are those that come from within (James 1:14-15). I want to be able to affirm Jesus’ full humanity, that He really was like us in every way that He might help us in every way.
Yours sincerely,
Barry Seagren
By email
Matthew Mason replies:
Great question! Jesus’ miraculous conception means he didn’t inherit original sin. So, unlike us, He wasn’t tempted by disordered desires rising from a corrupted heart. His temptations came from outside (from Satan), not within, though they were still real and powerful. His desires were natural ones, for good things (e.g. bread, after fasting 40 days), terror of death and wrath in Gethsemane, though giving in would have led Him away from God’s will that He suffer and die for His people.
