Evangelism Idea:

I have generally struggled with the idea of discussing the truth of sin with an unbeliever. Today's world does not want to hear about the all-pervasive and comprehensive nature of sin. They (and maybe we as well) would really like to believe that people are generally good, deep down inside, we all want what's best, and we all love each other. Evil, twisted people are not the norm, but exceptions. Why would we want to hear about sin?

While doing my Old Testament Theology readings from O. Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants, I ran across this sentence:

"It is far better for the people of God to be fully aware of the precise nature of their particular sin rather than continuing to sin in ignorance."

Robertson makes this statement in a discussion on the progressive nature of God's successive covenants with his people, from the covenant of works with Adam (a hotly debated topic), to the covenant of grace with Adam and Eve, to the covenant with Noah, to the specific covenant with Abraham, and now we are discussing the covenant of law under Moses, with all of the people of Israel. Robertson is now arguing that this covenant of law is not a step back from the covenant with Abraham, as some might argue due to the fact that now there is a codified law that the people have to follow, whereas before there was much more direct interaction between God and his covenant partners. This is not the case, Robertson argues, for four reasons: the covenant of law speaks to Israel as a nation rather than to specific individuals (it has a much larger scope), the covenant of law is comprehensive, speaking to the whole life and existence of the people, the covenant of law has a humbling ability, preparing people for the riches of God's grace in Christ, and the covenant of law has typological significance, showing the people in greater detail the kind of life that God wants them to lead. This is why the Mosaic law is an advancement over the previously instituted covenants, an advancement, it must be said, not in terms of 'better' or 'more complete,' but an advancement in terms of redemptive history.

Anyways, to my point with the quote. I read that sentence, and right away thought of an analogy, which led me to its possible use for evangelism, or apologetics, or at least an argument for knowledge of sin and sinfulness. Here is the analogy:

It is better to know our sin rather than continue to sin in ignorance, because it has eternal consequences. If I were to do something that was completely normal to me, and I had done it for a long time, but it somehow negatively affected a person close to me, like a child for example, ruining their health, and I came to understand this consequence, would I continue to perform that action? Is it not better to know about what consequences and affects what I do has on other people, or even myself, rather than continuing to act in ignorance, all the while harming others or myself? It is the same with sin. While sinning in ignorance is not the same as wilfull disobedience, it is still harmful--it has eternal consequences. I would want to know about this, so as to minimize (as much as I can) these consequences, and so I would want to know about sin and sinfulness, so that I could, at the very least, not act out of ignorance.

I don't know how useful such an argument would be, but it reminds me of the words of Paul concerning the role of the law: "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ thatwe might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24). Knowledge of sin leads to the knowledge that we cannot, of ourselves, procure our own salvation. We need someone to do this for us, and this someone is Christ. Ignorance cannot lead us to Christ, but the wisdom of God can, and God, in his wisdom gave us the law, to make us aware of our sin, and make us aware of our need for his Son.