The Four Spiritual Laws, a Critique, part III

This is the third of five part series.

In the last part of this series, I discussed the first of the Four Spiritual Laws which universally declares that God loves everyone equally and has a wonderful plan for their lives. I look at how this was inconsistant with what the Bible actually says about the elect and the non-elect, and thus the Four Spiritual Law’s evangelism method starts out with a promise that may not be true for that person. In this entry, I will look at the second law:

“Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God’s love and plan for his life.”

The verses that accompany this law is Romans 3.23 and Romans 6.23. First of all, I want to point out the positive aspect of this law. I wish this would have been the first law, becasue it gets to the heart of the matter and our actual need. Far too often, the doctrine of sin is lost in Gospel presenations out of fear for offending others. However, as C.J. Mahaney writes “..if our perception of sin is incorrect, so will be our knowledge of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the law of God, the gospel, and the way of salvation. An accurate understanding of sinis the bottom button on the shirt of Christian theology. If it’s out of place, the whole garment will be hopelessly askew” (This Great Salvation, pg. 15). As I stated in the last installment, Paul’s letter to the Romans, which is his most theological work about justification, starts out with a discussion of our sinfulness. While I applaud the Four Laws on including this necessary aspect, there is a few problems with the presentation.

The first problem is that while the presenation asserts we are sinners, and provides scriptural support, it does not actually explain what sin is. It presents us with the fact that sin broke fellowship with God, but to the unconverted sinner what would that mean? Why would they care that fellowship was broken? What IS sin and how am I in particular a sinner? The Four Spiritual Law never explains this. And so the unregenerate are left knowing they are a sinner, but not knowing what that means.

The second problem is intimately joined to the first. There is no use of the Law in the presentation. Paul writes in Romans 3.20:

“For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

It is through the Law that we see what sin actually is. Paul makes the above quote personal in Romans 7.7b:

“Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.”

Paul earlier affirmed that we are all sinners, in need of a savior. The question then is, if we don’t hear the Law, if we don’t understand sin, why would we think we need a savior? What are we being saved from? There is no discussion on the justice of God in punishing sin. There is nothing of wrath known here. In other words, the only implications of sin that are shown is that we are separated from God, nothing of holy judgment and our need of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin.

The third problem is that we are told that the wages of sin is death, but we are never told what that means. We are only treated to an image to explain that there is a gulf between us and God. But again, what does that mean? And does death mean that we all die someday? The sinner already recognizes this fact of life. Is there something more to this death? In Genesis, we are told that if Adam sinned, he would surely die. When he did, his body certainly began to die physically, but there was a spiritual death as well. Though the gulf image shows this, it is not defined as such. The author of Hebrews states:

“and just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” (Hebrews 9.27)

The apostle John equates this judgment as the second death for the sinner, the eternal wrath of a holy God (Revelation 20.6,14-15). This is effect of sin, because God who is holy cannot be in the presence of sin (Habakkuk 1.13).

The fourth problem is found in the emphasis on God’s plan for our lives. The second law says:

“…man is continually trying to reach God and the abundant life through his own efforts, such as a good life, philosophy, or religion – but he inevitably fails.”

Abundant life is considered part of the wonderful plan, and for those who come to Him it is, but is that the purpose of the Gospel? Is Christ simply a means to abundant life, or something more? It is my belief that the overarching gift of the Gospel is eternal communion with God Himself. Did the apostles die so that they could continue to live abundantly? I should say not.

It is beyond unfortunate that these doctrines seem to be simply passed over when they are so obivously important to the Gospel message. Mahaney is absolutely correct in his quote above when he says that a misunderstanding of sin renders a false idea of the gospel. We are in a wretched state before a holy God, and there is but one way to Him. We will consider this in the next entry.