Sin and failure to find identity in Christ

[KGP]

I have heard it said often recently that sin is anytime we get our identity from (or seek our identity in) anything or anyone other than our creator God and our savior Jesus Christ. These statements are nearly always given not an example of sin but as it's definition.

I bristle a bit when I hear this. Should I? I understand the reality this saying is seeking to convey; but I'd be more comfortable saying that such are examples of sin, probably because as a definition it is lacking reference to God's law. The confessions say it well; any violation of or want of conformity to the law of God. But the way I have heard it put these days avoids mention of the law altogether and highlights personal trust and identity. A more subjective/internal/psychological approach in accordance with the spirit of the age perhaps; without that nasty 'L' word?

But even prominent and respected teachers utilize this sort of language so I wonder if I'm over analyzing it; is it a subtle shift in an unprofitable direction with potentially dangerous consequences? Or is it just another way of describing sin that helps shed light on our core duty to trust our Heavenly Father?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ed Walsh]

I bristle a bit when I hear this. Should I?

I think so.

Not to be trite but can you get much better that the Westminster Shorter Catechism?

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

 

[KGP]

I think so.

Not to be trite but can you get much better that the Westminster Shorter Catechism?

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

I really don't think you can, no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack K]

If you're looking for a definition, the confession is a good way to go. But if you're a preacher looking for ways to talk to people about sin, you want to use many ways, not just a single definition-based approach. The way of talking you mentioned is true enough as far as it is one of the things usually going on when a person sins. I can accept it as one way to talk about sin—helpful when talking to some people today, especially if they're liable to tune out if you start by talking about conforming to God's law.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The root-sin is pride, self glory, "Ye shall be as God."

It may help some people to get to the definition of sin as disobedience to God (lawlessness, 1Jn.3:4) if they gain an intuitive awareness that not seeking his glory first and always means something else--self or an idol of self-creation--is raised by default. To that degree, maybe the form of those words has use, despite the fact that language doesn't sound right, to someone for some reason.

The statement in the OP that raised questions sound like a "Piper-ism," or a knock-off. JP has his good points, but is also a celebrity Christian personality. I see problems arising, when a local pastor preaching to his congregation in language and cadences that are tailored to them (and they know their shepherd's voice) takes that message and nationalizes it. Suddenly people in So.FL are hearing things said in MN, by a disembodied voice, and running with it. Wait... did they hear the whole thing? Anything get lost in translation?

Our creeds and confessions are crafted to be universal, agreed-upon words. And we still labor to get agreement on them. Someone writes a book, with the goal of cross-ecclesiastical appeal, broad interest. He has to use American pop-culture, current terms, the stuff readers are hearing on TV. He makes a splash because lots of people are moved by the timely expression (even if the specific meaning is soft-focus and fuzzy).

In five years, the language of pop-culture has moved on. But the book is still out there. Now what does it mean? It's like one of those lattes with a picture cut in the foam on top. Or like cloud formations that clearly depict a castle... for about 30secs.

We still read those old, old sermons and books because we still speak that language. The stuff that has lasted a long time has (generally speaking) kept its value, at least to those who still recognize the language.

 

[au5t1n]

I see problems arising, when a local pastor preaching to his congregation in language and cadences that are tailored to them (and they know their shepherd's voice) takes that message and nationalizes it. Suddenly people in So.FL are hearing things said in MN, by a disembodied voice, and running with it. Wait... did they hear the whole thing? Anything get lost in translation?

Well said.