Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

other side. It assumes that man had a free will even before the awakening of his moral
consciousness, so that he was able to choose when he was placed before a moral ideal;
but does not explain how we can conceive of a free and indeterminate will in a process
of evolution. It limits sin to those transgressions of the moral law, which are committed
with a clear consciousness of a moral ideal and are therefore condemned by conscience
as evil. As a matter of fact, it is merely the old Pelagian view of sin grafted into the
theory of evolution, and is therefore open to all the objections with which Pelagianism is
burdened.
The radical defect in all these theories is that they seek to define sin without taking
into consideration that sin is essentially a breaking away from God, opposition to God,
and transgression of the law of God. Sin should always be defined in terms of man’s
relation to God and to His will as expressed in the moral law.
B. THE SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF SIN.
In giving the Scriptural idea of sin it is necessary to call attention to several
particulars.
1. SIN IS A SPECIFIC KIND OF EVIL. At the present time we hear a great deal about evil,
and comparatively little about sin; and this is rather misleading. Not all evil is sin. Sin
should not be confused with physical evil, with that which is injurious or calamitous. It
is possible to speak not only of sin but also of sickness as an evil, but then the word
“evil” is used in two totally different senses. Above the physical lies the ethical sphere,
in which the contrast between moral good and evil applies, and it is only in this sphere
that we can speak of sin. And even in this sphere it is not desirable to substitute the
word “evil” for “sin” without any further qualification, for the latter is more specific
than the former. Sin is a moral evil. Most of the names that are used in Scripture to
designate sin point to its moral character. Chatta’th directs attention to it as an action
that misses the mark and consists in a deviation from the right way. ’Avel and ’avon
indicate that it is a want of integrity and rectitude, a departure from the appointed path.
Pesha’ refers to it as a revolt or a refusal of subjection to rightful authority, a positive
transgression of the law, and a breaking of the covenant. And resha’ points to it as a
wicked and guilty departure from the law. Furthermore, it is designated as guilt by
’asham, as unfaithfulness and treason, by ma’al, as vanity, by ’aven, and as perversion or
distortion of nature (crookedness) by ’avah. The corresponding New Testament words,
such as hamartia, adikia, parabasis, paraptoma, anomia, paranomia, and others, point to the
same ideas. In view of the use of these words, and of the way in which the Bible usually
253