The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1893-09-06
Are There two kinds Of Sin.

It seems to thousand pities that the
word "sin," in modern theological dis
cussion, has not been confined to that
which will always be its meaning in
the popular mind, that which may be
called the common-sense meaning,
which carries with it the thought OF
guilt, blameworthiness, personal de
merit, and desert of punishment, that
which Wesley repeatedly calls 1.-The
Scriptural definition Of il" .'sin pro-
perly so-called," "a voluntary trans.
gression of known law" 1t would
have saved an immense amount OF
controversy, and cleared up several
doctrines which, chiefly on account or
the ambiguity of this word, are is it in
more or less confusion.
AS 1t is, the word "sin," all readers
of theology, know, is often used for
what would much better be termed
'.depravity"--that disordered condi-
ton of our nature derived from Adam
not of itself involving guilt or dismer-
it. This Is simply that change in our
nature whereby we are no longer in
harmony with God or with ourselves,
as we were originally made, but have
80 strong q leaning toward self-indul-
gence that we are easily brought into
disobedience to the divine commands.
It is the result of actual sin in the past
and makes the actual or personal sin
easier in the present or future, has
tendency to produce it, but ought on
no account to be confounded with 1t, as
is 80 frequently done. 1t would be as
reasonable to call coal heat because 1t is
the results Of heat in the past and pro-
duces heat in the present or future:
Sin Is disobedince to the law of God,
possible only where there is free moral
agency and calls for repentance and
pardon. Depravity,- on the other
hand, is not our fault, for 1t comes up.
on US inevitably, without any agency
of our own; it Is only our misfortune
or infirmity. 1t imparts an abnormal
strength to the lower nature, to the
sensual elements of our being,
and renders their control by the
higher nature, the spiritual part
much more difficult than it was in the
beginning. But these tendencies or in
born inclinations to the undue gratifi-
cation of self-..in other words, to sin
ARE not In themselves sins. 10 make
them so there must the free acceptance
or cherishipg of them by the RESPONSE
BILE moral agent. 1t is bis personal
choice or volition which constitutes
the sin, and which alone receives con-
demnation.
Here, then, are two entirely distinct
things, essentially different. TO keep
them apart is certainly indispensable
to clear thought, but practically impos-
slble, as the history of doctrine abun-
dainty show long az the sane word, SIN
is used for both.
By all means, say we, let depravity,
with careful definition and eXplana-
tion, be universally employed wher-
ever it Is applicable, and let such mis-
bepotten terms as "inbred sin," "ori-
pinal SIM" "birth SIM" which have
done great harm, be snmmarily dis
missed to the limbo where they belong.
Then we can face with less embarrass-
ment and difficulty that very impor-
tant question which can not much
longer be evaded by Methodist theolo'
gians: Is depravity all removable in
the present life? Or, in other words,
does Christ undertake to destroy in
any man all the effects of the fall, all
work of the devil, previous to the re-
surrection? He who will face that
question frankly, and present clear,
detailed discussion of it without fear
or favor to present parties or past au-
thorities, will do good service TO the
Church. Herald.