Systematic Theology - Sin

The View of Sins as Virtues

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Systematic Theology

Lesson: Government

Genre: Speech

Track: 11

Dictation Name: 11- The View of Sins as Virtues

Year: 1980

Prayer….

Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, we thank Thee that as we face an evil and troubled world, we have the blessed assurance that Thou art on the throne and that Thou hast ordained all things for the accomplishment of Thy holy purpose. Give us grace to walk in this confidence, to know that in Jesus Christ we are called to be more than conquerors, that if God be for us, who can be against us. Fix our hearts firmly upon Jesus Christ and Thy Word and make us strong in faith and faithful in action. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

During our first session, our subject will be “The View of Sins as Virtues.” And our scripture is Genesis 3:6, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

Particular sins are often viewed by Humanism as virtues. This should not surprise us because the principle of sin, which is set forth in Genesis 3:5, “ye shall be as God,” (every man his own god), is the basic faith of Humanism. It should not surprise us therefore that particular sins are then justified.

During the Middle Ages, they spoke of the seven deadly sins. Now, we don’t have such a catalog in the Bible but this does not mean that the seven deadly sins were not sins. However, many other sins are dealt with in the Bible. The seven deadly sins were pride, envy, wrath (anger or hate), lechery, covetousness, gluttony and sloth. Now one of these, anger, the Bible sometimes speaks of it as righteous and speaks of God’s anger, so anger is not necessarily a sin. Gluttony is perhaps given too high a position here over such things as false witness and others, perhaps because of medieval asceticism.

But the sad fact is that all these seven deadly sins (and many others) have gained respectability in recent years. Pride and irreligious ambition are now seen very commonly as virtues, not as sins. Some years ago, one of the most familiar quotations from Shakespeare in grade school textbooks very often used for memory work was from Shakespeare’s King Henry VIII, Cardinal Wolsey’s famous farewell to Cromwell. Wolsey speaks of his sin of pride and of ambition and he says, “Mark but my fall and that that ruined me, Cromwell. I charge thee. Fling away ambition. By that sin fell the angels. How can man then, the image of his maker hope to win by it? Love thyself last. Cherish those hearts that hate thee. Corruption wins not more than honesty. Still in thy right hand carry gentle peace to silence envious tongues. Be just and fear not. Let all the ends thou aimest at be thy countries, they gods and truths, then if thou fallest, oh Cromwell, thou fallest a blessed martyr. Oh, Cromwell, Cromwell, had I but served my god with half the zeal I served my king, he would not in mine age left me naked to mine enemies.” Several times in the past 10, 15 years, I’ve used a sentence or two of that in various talks I’ve given, and I have had puzzled responses. What Wolsey saw as his sin is no longer a sin to many people. So pride and irreligious ambition are quite extensively, nowadays, a {?}.

Then, envy. Envy is spoken of in strong language in scripture as a great evil. But envy has been institutionalized now. Helmut Schoeck, a sociologist in a very important book published in 1970 entitled simply Envy, pointed out how the politics of the modern world which is destroying our civilization is the politics of envy. We are teaching people to envy anyone who is more successful, not to work, not to emulate, but to envy. And so envy has become the instrument of confiscation, of trying to gain what one does not rightly have.

Again, we could speak of lechery. The sexual revolution has made that a legitimate goal so that today in terms of the sexual revolution, a man supposedly has the right to indulge himself.

We could go on and deal with the many kinds of sins that are not vindicated and justified by Humanism: rebellion, contempt for authority, ingratitude, and so on. We have duty despised and irresponsibility treated as though it were a virtue; the way to live.

But the chronicle of this kind of decay is not our purpose this evening, but the religious principle of present sinning. Man is a religious creature. What he does, he does out of a religious motive. Now, I said I was speaking on “The View of Sins as Virtues.” Let’s look at it in the economic realm.

In recent years, we have often been told, especially from the 50s to about ’75 that a little inflation is a good thing. It simply needs intelligent controlling to become a great asset to the economy. As a matter of fact, virtually all the teaching of economics in colleges and universities across the country has taught that. Well, it’s like saying a little pregnancy is a good thing provided you don’t let it develop anywhere. Now, we have today the consequences of that recommended sin, a little inflation, threatening to destroy us. The idea of course has been that a little sin is a good thing because you can control it, keep it in line, and it will provide you with all that you need. This is the key—controlled sin, with man as the master over it. This was Lord Keynes’ idea.

It’s a very prevalent concept. It is basic to situation ethics. It’s basic to a great deal of counseling that goes on today not only in modernist, but in neo-evangelical sources. All over the country I find people telling me that so-and-so, a pastor or a Christian so-called Christian psychotherapist has said that in certain cases, adultery is helpful to a marriage or to a person and to his development. And of course, they’re always very pious and they say this does not mean we approve of adultery. But in certain cases, it can provide a necessary relief, or an outlet. This of course, is the idea that sin can be controlled, rather than that it controls man.

Now we can grant that there are often difficult situations, but the situation, the circumstances cannot govern us, only the Law of God. The Law of God speaks very plainly, very unequivocally, “thou shalt not commit adultery.” In Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18 where we read this commandment, we are told it is a consequence of the fact which is stated as the prefix to the Ten Commandments, “I am the Lord, thy God.” God’s Law requires obedience, not because there’s an advantage to us in it, but because God is the Lord and He commands it.

Over the years I’ve seen that single women (that is widows), often have problems rearing their children. Now, a woman can be very good with children, if there’s a man, with his authority there. Why? If the man commands something, he does it on a theologically sound principle. He says to his boy, “Do this.” And he says, “Why?” He says, “Because I said so. Do it!” Now, the mother then comes along and explains to the child (which is also very good), “Now, you should obey because it’s for your good and thus and thus things ensue. This is why it’s done.” She gives him the reason. Well, when it’s a single woman, then the situation is a broken one and she’s trying to reason a child into obedience when it’s the masculine ‘do it because I said so’ plus the feminine, ‘now this is the reason why that order was given’ which together make for good obedience. Thus it is, that God in His Word tells us there are curses for disobedience and blessings for obedience, but the basic reason He gives for His commandments is, “I am the Lord, thy God.” Do it, because I declared it. And we must do it, whether it is to our advantage or not. As Job said in Job 13:15, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.”

The doctrine of controlled sinning is Humanistic to the core. It presupposes that man is the lord. Man’s attitude toward sin is governed by his personal advantage, not God’s Law. Hence, if sin is an advantage, it is justified and it is vindicated. So the presupposition of controlled sinning is, if it works out for my benefit, then I’m justified. In other words, man is the lord and he can make all things work together for good for himself. So, a little theft, a little lie, a little adultery, a little sinning, I can use it, I can make it work out for good because I’m in charge. But God only can make all things work together for good, because God only is the Lord. Moreover, God is clear that not only is man not lord over his life, nor over his sin, but he is rather the slave of sin. “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (or slave) of sin,” our Lord said in John 8:34.

Every act of sin involves a decision. That decision is a lordship decision. So that every particular sin, every time we do something wrong, we’re saying, well, I’m going to be the boss here. I’m going to be the lord. I’m going to make the decision. And I choose to do this thing because I want it. Before the commission of sin, Adam and Eve decided on their lordship. This was the first step they took. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat and gave also unto her husband with her and he did eat.” It was a conscious decision. It was based on the tempter’s premise, ye shall be as god. Decide for yourself in terms of your advantages, and here the advantages are listed.

So a very conscious decision preceded by a variety of considerations led to the decision that we will do it because it is to our advantage. And yet, after sinning, after the fall, both pleaded weakness and circumstances. “The woman Thou gavest to be with me, she did give me and I did eat.” “The serpent gave me and I did eat.” In other words, what Adam and Eve call attention to is a single act. All I did was one little thing, Lord, but that single act which they said was the weakness of a moment, had behind it a lordship decision. So we must always see that every particular sin has behind it the principle of sin: I am the lord, rather than God is the Lord. In other words, basic to the doctrine of controlled sinning is that sin is held to be separate from our persons instead of an expression thereof; it’s an isolated act that we fell into, not something that comes out of the heart, and expresses what we are.

Are there any questions now?

Yes…

[Audience] Is it possible that because of the humanist’s desire to be his own god that he also seeks to atone himself by adopting an ethical system that’s going to work to his own self destruction?

[Rushdoony] Yes. Anyone who is outside of Jesus Christ is going to try to make self-atonement. And in a series we did about two years ago on atonement, we pointed out that atonement is either by masochism (self-punishment) or sadism (punishing others). In other words, we say, okay, Lord, see what I’ve suffered and see what I’ve put myself through; I’ve paid for my sins, or It wasn’t my fault and I’m going to make somebody else suffer.

Any other questions or comments?

Yes…

[Audience] In terms of envy as a virtue, you mentioned the word ambition, the problem isn’t as much in the ambition as much as it is in the envying others, {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes and what we have is godless ambition, a desire to promote oneself rather than a calling, you see. Ambition is self-promotion. A calling, we seek to get ahead in the Lord for His praise and glory. And there’s a difference. The ambitious person is ready to stomp anybody in his path to get ahead. The person with a godly calling says I’m going to do thus and so and get ahead because I’ve been called by the Lord to exercise dominion and to subdue the earth. There is a difference, you see, between the two.

Any other questions?

Well, we will adjourn now then for a while and resume in about 10, 15-minutes.