{"id":18406,"date":"2025-02-03T15:18:16","date_gmt":"2025-02-03T20:18:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/?p=18406"},"modified":"2025-02-03T15:52:53","modified_gmt":"2025-02-03T20:52:53","slug":"january-intermission-from-the-image-of-god-to-the-the-doctrine-of-sin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/article\/concise\/january-intermission-from-the-image-of-god-to-the-the-doctrine-of-sin\/","title":{"rendered":"January Intermission: From the Image of God to the the Doctrine of Sin"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Today, Christ Over All<\/em> begins a new month with a new theme: Whatever Happened to the Doctrine of Sin? <\/em>In this month, we will do more than simply outline a biblical doctrine, one that is found in all systematic theologies. More urgently, we are putting out an All-Points Bulletin to find the doctrine of sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we took a survey of contemporary culture, we would find that the biblical language of sin, transgression, and iniquity has been replaced by softer, therapeutic terms. Words like \u201cbrokenness,\u201d \u201cmistake,\u201d and \u201caccident\u201d abound, along with ideas that suggest that sin is a natural or even biological phenomena. This way of thinking weakens the doctrine of sin to the point that it is nearly absent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, when talking about sin, it is necessary to speak plainly about the subject, but also to defend its relevance. Indeed, as pastors go out of their way to avoid condemning congregants with sin and the wrath that it invites<\/a>, we who care about truth and the health of the church need to reintroduce the necessity and even vitality of sin. And hence, that is why we are spending the month on this missing doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\"Macintosh<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In so many ways, this month will continue to develop the doctrine of humanity from last month. While human nature does not require sin (as is evidenced in the pre-fall Adam and the person of Christ), any proper theology of mankind will consider Adam\u2019s fall, the imputation of guilt from the first man to all humanity, the ongoing corruption of human nature, the sinful actions and <\/em>desires produced by man\u2019s fallen nature, and so much more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, because sin has been devalued today, we must return the doctrine to its proper place. For, without a proper view of sin, we will never adequately understand the cross of Christ, the hope of salvation, or the glory the new creation. For that reason, we will be taking all of February to look at this doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, before jumping into the new month, it is worth our time to consider how the doctrine of humanity has taken center stage in recent headlines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Doctrine of Humanity in the Headlines<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Last month, we focused on the Image of God: In Scripture and Society<\/em>. And I don\u2019t think we could have had a more timely publication. As Donald Trump took office on January 20, his flurry of Executive Orders touched on countless matters related to God\u2019s image. From enforcing the Hyde Amendment<\/a>, to defining male and female according to biology<\/a>, to securing the border<\/a>, President Trump issued statements that bear directly on the subject of what it means to be human. And more often than not, his actions advanced the protection of life and promoted the good of humanity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I was in Florida, I had the chance to talk to Joe Rigney and William Wolfe about some of these Executive Orders and how Christians should think about them. You can find that podcast here<\/a>. Without rehashing such commentary again, it is simply worth noting how theological anthropology works its way into nearly every cultural and political decision we face. On our own podcast, Steve Wellum and I had the chance to talk about that with Michael Wilkerson<\/a>, and before that, Trent Hunter, Steve, and I discussed the same thing in the our first interview of the year<\/a>. So again, the timing of this subject could not be better. And in fact, last week, two other noteworthy anthropological headlines came into the news.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, when Vice President Vance referenced the Ordo Amoris<\/em><\/a> on Fox News, he introduced a deeply Christian concept into the public arena. As Andrew Walker has outlined since<\/a>, the idea of having ordered loves is necessary for holding together a spirit of charity for all people (Luke 10:29\u201337) with a responsibility for those closest to home (1 Tim. 5:8; cf. Gal. 6:10). Indeed, while David Platt and other evangelicals<\/a> have often jumped over the family to reach the nations, Vice President Vance reminded us of the simple and Christian principle of ordering our loves<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then second, there was also a statement released last week about the Future of the Family<\/a>. Endorsed by Christian leaders like Albert Mohler, Andrew Walker, Carl Trueman, and Eric Teetsel, along with many other political conservatives, this new project aims to help households handle the barrage of technology undermining human nature and the goodness of families. You can find the website here, A Future for the Family<\/a>. And if you look at it, you will notice many of the arguments we have made this month are related to the ten propositions they make about families<\/a>, child-bearing<\/a>, technology<\/a>, and the like<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In all, what these headlines indicate is the way that Christians are responding to a world that has lost touch with the nature of humanity. All last month, we sought to recover those biblical foundations with ethical implications, and I would encourage you to spend time reading those articles and sharing them with others, because without knowing the future, I am willing predict that issues related to humanity (and sin) will not be leaving the headlines any time soon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Image of God: In Scripture and Society<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Macintosh<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n