Lying, Cheating, Adultery, Murder. Are they all equal? Is one sin worse than another? or are all sins equally offensive to God?
This post is for all you theologues, especially the non-conflicting and graded absolutists.
Have fun:)
BR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
Brother Brad,
The first thing that comes to mind is the verse that says, Anything that is not done is faith is sin. I believe that lying, adultery and other items we call sin is merely the evidence of the sin within our heart.
Blessings,
Tim
Brad,
You may have left the question purposefully vague, but I feel parameters must be established for me to be able to answer. Thus, I set for myself the following parameters:
(1) you're talking about sins with regard to 'sanctification' as opposed to 'justification' and
(2) you're talking about 'consequences' rather than 'judgement'.
Based on those parameters, I most certainly believe that sins are different. There are significantly stronger consequences for murder than for speeding. Were I to change the parameters to regard the sins in a 'justification' sense, any breach AT ALL of God's moral law is a breach of the entire law. We are guilty of death - the penalty of sin.
PS I'm sure I'd classify myself as a hierarchicalist (is that how you spell it?)
Grace and peace,
PTL
Brad, now that depends on what is is. Hee, I remember a former sitting American President using that phrase. Never have gotten over it.
You do enjoy playing the devil's advocate, don't you? selahV
Pastor Brad,
I believe that the Bible shows us that sin is sin.
I am sure that you have heard some people say that the may have sinned a little, but nothing serious like murder.The Bible tells us in 1JN 3:15 "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer".
Maybe you have heard some say that they have never gone out on their spouse. Jesus tells us in MT 5:28 "But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already commited adultry with her in his heart"
God is so totally holy (more than we can imagine)that any sin is not tolerable in His sight. We can not enter his presence with any sin in us.
This is what then brings us to the good news. The LORD JESUS CHRIST and him crucified. The lamb that bore our sins.
of course, all sin is bad. and, sin is wrong....all of them. but, some sins are worse than others. murdering a young mother and her child would be far worse than a teen lying to his mother about studying for a test. and, the consequences would be worse too.
i have heard preachers say that sin is sin....no sin is worse than another. they are all sin. but, i dont agree with that. of course, some sins are worse than others.
also, i believe that hell will be hotter for some than it will be for others. degrees of hell. hell will be much hotter for a hitler, or a stalin, than it will be for good ole neighbor joe down the road that never hurt anybody.
volfan007
Dr. Reynolds,
When I was a Pastor, sometimes my teaching topics would slump and the interaction I expected and for which most teachers long, vanished as well. I could ever count on lively interaction when the question you now pose was offered: All sin is sinful but is all sin equally sinful? That always aroused the neighbor's dogs.
For me, I am hopelessly a graded absolute addict. Years ago, I read Geisler's first edition of Christian Ethics: Options & Issues and never quite recovered.
For me, he makes the most sense while maintaining a thoroughly Biblical approach.
I trust you'll have your wish for some great interaction. Have peace today. With that, I am...
Peter
According to the Bible some sins seem to be more abominable to God than others (i.e. divorce, homosexuality, etc.).
The OT lists different temporal punishments for different temporal sins, which might suggest that they are not equal (i.e. fined 100 shekels of silver by the elders of the city for taking a woman's virginity but stone that same woman if it is found that she was not a virgin - Deut. 22).
There are some sins that are strictly personal (i.e. Person A does not think it is a sin to eat meat - Person B does, therefore it would be a sin for Person B to eat meat)
"The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin." - Romans 14:22-23 (and all of Romans 14)
God Bless,
Lew A
OK...I'll dip my toe into the water first.
Any sin is enough to damn you to Hell were it not for the Savior. Yet it seems clear to me that the Bible in numerous places highlights particular sins for special rebuke.
So, I think that not all sins are equally bad, but all are bad enough.
I'll take a crack at it, Brad, even though I'm not theologue.
I do believe that all sin is equal in God's eyes, in that He hates them all.
However, the consequences of each sin differ.
Like in football, offsides is a penalty. This will drive a coach crazy during a key drive. Much like a personal foul is a penalty as well. However, this will drive a coach MUCH crazier during a key drive.
The consequences of someone lying are far less than adultery or murder. The latter have lifelong effects on the individual as well his/her family and beyond.
Hey folks I'm back in class until after lunch but will return then. Great discussion going on here. I am anxious to join in and will soon:)
BR
Brad,
For what my two cents worth is really worth, here it is.
God is holy; perfect and perfectly sinless. God's own degree of holiness is His standard for humanity. Any amount of sin guilt causes a person to "fall short" of God's standard. Therefore, any sin, regarless of it's humanly perceived severity, dooms the sinner to an eternity in hell. So from an eternal spiritual perspective, God at least punishes all sin equally.
That said, there is a difference from the human/temporal perspective. Some sins have a larger impact than others. Stealing a car has a larger negative effect on the victim than would stealing $1.00 from the same person. Blowing up a building full of people not only causes more deaths, but has a greater impact on the community than would the murder of a single individual. So from a purely human perspective all sin is not equal.
Society meets out punishment based on their perceived severity of the damage caused by the perpitrator. In Scripture, God also mandated more or less severe consequences for the sinner depending on his/her sin. It has been argued that this indicates that God personally takes greater offense to some sins than to others. Perhaps it could be argued that this indicates not a greater personal offense to God, but that the omniscient God sees these sins as greater offenses to humanity.
For the record: Personally, I don't any more buy into the biblically indefensible degrees of hell myth than I do the purgatory myth. It's a moot point anyway, given that one doomed to hell is eternally separated from God in a place of torment without hope of escape or relief and that personal pain/suffering/torment is totally subjective and relative only to personal experience.
Brad: I was wondering, isn't the greatest consequence of sin, not being an elect? And also...elect don't go to hell, right?
I'm serious here. Not trying to pick a fight with anyone. SelahV
Also, to anyone: Who was the greater sinner? Judas who betrayed or Peter who denied? selahV
If all sin were equal, God would not be righteous unless all punishments were also equal. The OT clearly demonstrates that different levels of punishment were utilized for different sins.
It is a completely different issue that any sin is enough to merit eternal punishment from a holy God. In fact, if our flesh is fallen do to the corporate sin of Adam, we deserve hell from birth.
If all sin is equal, God is not righteous.
This ought to stir the stew pot really good. I beleive that as long as I love Jesus "I can do all things through Christ". Have fun with that one.
Another stew pot statement
How can you think something and it be a sin when you haven't really done anything.
Sorry I did not see you today Dr. Reynolds
Thus, far my take on this, from the comments is:
Any sin is a removal of God from His rightful place of authority in our lives. Any sin is a rebellious affront to a Holy God. And any sin against an infinite being is worthy of infinite consequences/punishment (Hell).
However, there are certain sins, which seem to anger God more than others. Since God is perfectly just and does not have temper-tantrums, this would seem to imply that His apparent anger at some sins more than others, flows from His perfect justice. Thus, although any rebellion is worthy of separation, some rebellion is worse than other rebellion (ie –volitional, perverted, etc).
If this is the case and if there are degrees of sin then is one justified in choosing a lesser sin in a situation where he finds he must sin one way or another. And if he chooses the lesser sin which appears to be his only way out, is it sin? In other words, what are we to do when apparent absolutes conflict?
Would you jaywalk to give CPR to a dying individual? Would you speed to get a loved one to the hospital? Would you lie to save your child’s life? and if so are these sins?
Some have argued that hell has no degrees of heat (which even if it does, I’m not sure 3000 degrees is much different from 4000), how would you explain Matt 11:21 and also what are the books, which are opened in Rev. 20?
This may keep us busy for a while…but the pursuit of truth is fun.
BR
Brad,
If, as many here believe, people can be persuaded to become Christians and if allowing someone to die and go to hell is horrible, then having a glass of wine in order to help persuade someone to choose Christianity is nothing, right? :)
Grace and peace,
PTL
PTL
I think your comment belongs on the other posts...so I have answered it there.
BR
Brad,
I appreciate you directing your answer to another blog, but my question was not meant as a serious one, so the shell-game isn't necessary. :) It was meant only as hyperbole - as a mild reproach to those who may believe that we can persuade others to become saved. If such is true, hierarchicalism is a dangerous idea.....
Grace and peace,
PTL
PTL
I am not aware of anyone posting here who believes we can “persuade others to become saved” as if it were mental ascent and beyond the working of the Holy Spirit of God.
Jim
Thanks for being brave enough to tackle the questions. I have a follow up. Are you saying that you would purposely commit a “qualified” sin? I know I’m playing the devil’s advocate here but I’m trying to think through this also.
Jeffro,
Agreed, we sin because we are sinners but is God’s anger the same with every sin and if not why not?
BR
Jeffro: You said to Brad,"To state it simply. We sin because we are sinners. We are not sinners because we sin."
Were Eve and Adam sinners before they sinned? If not, then what made them sinners?
Also, if we are not sinners because we sin, we are sinners because of why?
SelahV
Brad,
(a) you may be surprised by how many believe that another can be persuaded to choose Christ, and (b) some may not assent 'per se', but in practice, if we believe others have the ability to 'choose' Christ, then we must believe we have the ability to persuade - but we digress from the post brother.
Grace to you,
PTL
Jim
As you know some would argue that we should not speed nor jaywalk, but should leave it in God’s hands and trust Him. This is the non-conflicting absolutists position. To me the problems with this position are obvious. 1) I don’t think anyone actually practices this in real life. 2) I am not convinced that allowing a person to die because we refused to speed is righteous (or more righteous than speeding – in other words I am not convinced that such an act itself would not be sin, considering the 2 greatest commandments).
You seem to be taking a conflicting absolutists position. Either way you go, you have to choose sin and you choose the lesser sin (speeding) in order to save a life. The problem with this position, as I see it, is 1 Corinthians 10:13.
Finally, there is the graded absolutists position, which basically affirms that absolutes do at times conflict. But we are to choose the one which is the lesser of the two and in so doing God exempts what would normally be sin because we have chosen the higher law. Only God could exempt (not exceptions – for there are no exceptions…sin is sin) sin based on the work of Christ and His nature. The problem with this position, as I see it, is without the THEOS factor this would be situational ethics.
I think all positions have their problems but I would have to affirm the last based on Scripture and the Theos factor.
Thus, at this point in my understanding I would say that I would speed and believe that God has exempted my sin in this specific situation because I chose the higher law of loving my neighbor (son) and protecting my family. My only other options is to assume that God would have me drive the speed limit and watch my son bleed to death, or God did not provide a way out of sin.
I enjoy this type of interaction.
God bless my brother,
BR
selah
Great thoughts. Excellent questions...now you have me thinking:)
PTL
I think we would disagree on how ignorant the Bride of Christ is on these issues. That is not to say that some are ignorant, but it is to say I am not convinced it is systemic, although we do need to do a better job discipling, as evidenced by what took place at the SBC this summer:)
God bless
BR
Dr. Reynolds,
A major criticism torward graded absolutism leveled by Evangelicals--Lutzer/Kaiser, for example--was that Geisler's form was barely a knat's breath from Joseph Fletcher's Situationism. Geisler painfully had to continue distancing himself from Fletcher.
With you, I believe there are worrisome knots in most every form of ethical absolutism, including graded absolutism. I suppose in the fallen world we've created, we should not expext less.
One weakness I sense in graded absolutism--again the view I embrace--is the lack of a Biblically defined hierachical scale of moral principles. If not careful, it could end up being highly subjective and/or arbitrary (again, Geisler takes pains to avoid such a problem).
For example it's seems relatively easy to see that saving a life is a greater good than telling the truth. Thus, Corrie was morally correct in lying to the Germans for the greater good of saving the Jews.
On the other hand, it can get excruciatingly sticky in determining which life is more important to save, say in a pregnancy tragically gone bad. Most of us say abort the baby but save the Mother. How is it that we determine a greater good to save one human life rather than the other?
Interestingly, Geisler eases the tension by appealing to the principle of self-defense. In his view, the heretofore lovable little baby is transformed into the equivalent of a thug with a loaded gun cocked and ready to shoot its prey. The doctors save the mother by taking out the sniper via abortion.
Of course, Geisler did not actually put it in quite those terms. But I honestly do not think I have been unfair to the moral principle he wants me to embrace by appealing to the "higher good" of self-defense.
I trust your classes go well today. With that, I am...
Peter
Brad,
In the case of speeding or jaywalking vs saving a life, one could argue that we are only obligated to the laws of the land in so far as they do not violate the laws/commands of God. The natural progression is then that saving the life is a law of God and speeding is a law of the land. Thus, in this case speeding would not be a sin in the eyes of God.
If you really want to test this question, you need to surmise a circumstance where both choices are clearly violations of God's law and relatively "equal in severity" from a human perspective.
I can't come up with one. I tend to agree with you concerning 1 Cor 10:13.
to answer those who say that we sin because we are sinners...that's true. but, God does care about the individual sins that a person commits. otherwise, why would verse like rev. 20 where it says that people will judged according to thier works. sounds like God is keeping up with all the sins to me, and it sounds like different degrees of hell to me. also, matthew 11:20 and following are very enlightening on this as well.
good ole joe who helped his neighbors and never hurt no one but never got saved will not be judged as harshly as hitler will be. hell will be much hotter for hitler. btw, that just means that hell will be worse....
volfan007
All sin bears the same eternal consequence, death. God judges rightly all sin. From the perspectice of man, all sins are not equal, they bear different consequences.
Serving Him,
Mike
We know that God's word teaches us how holy He is. Understanding that Holiness might be difficult because we are imperfect and God is perfect. A wise teacher once used the moral dilimma (situation where either choice leads us to sin) in class to provoke interesting discussion. I argee that sin is sin as that Bible teaches. Jesus went so far as to say that even the thought of sin is the same as the act of sin. That is why we must continually keep a "short account" with God. Thus emphazing the need for a daily personal time with God where not only we confess our sins that we are aware of but also ask of our Lord to help us become aware of those sins that we are not aware of. All the while we must I think that we must be careful that we do not become over-zealous in this endeavor. By over- zealous I mean that we do not withdraw ourselves from society seeking to live as a hermit in a 3 foot cave or standing on a 30 foot pillar all day, or any other for of self mutilazation (I know I can't spell) etc, for the gain of thinking we are beating sin out of our bodies to become more Christ-like.
Wait a minute!........
We're not supposed to speed or jaywalk? Man, am I glad that we don't believe in Purgatory!
Well .. why not? Questions:
If a person were only ever guilty of one of those sins, one time, which one(s) would doom them to hell?
Which, if any, would not condemn the sinner?
Which one, when committed, could be atoned for by some means other than the blood of Christ?
Punishment has been mentioned. Surely we would deal, say with a pastor, who spoke an item of gossip, differently from one who had committed adultery. The "punishment" would, of course, be different. That doesn't seem to be the question, though.
Any sin is as bad as it can be, to God. Only man differentiates.
In my opinion, at least.
Peter,
Self-defense is probably where I would diverge from Geisler. Defending those, one is responsible for, is one thing; but when it comes to self-defense the NT Christians were extreme pacifists. Anyway, excellent comment which I conquer with.
BR
Kevin,
You do bring up, what I believe is at the heart of graded absolutism. God’s word is absolute about obeying the authorities over us, but Peter gave us the exception…obey God or man (the obvious choice is God). The question arises: are we truly obeying God by speeding to save a life? In other words, Does God really tell us it is ok to break man’s law in these circumstances? I think one would be hard-pressed to argue from a non-conflicting view that God exempts man’s law if we THINK we are saving a life.
However, your point is well taken, so we must move to a situation like Corrie Ten Boom. Was she wrong to lie? I am unwilling to say she sinned and she should have led the authorities to the Jews.
BR
Volfan
I do agree with degree of punishment.
BR
Jim
I agree. It would seem there is no temptation in that situation. That is why I am a graded-absolutist. A conflicting absolutist has to say there was no way out…we just sin one way or the other and ask forgiveness which begs the question from 1 Cor. 10. A non-conflicting absolutist has to drive the speed limit and trust God (in order to be faithful to their view).
BR
Jeffro,
If God treats all sin as equal then why does He appear angrier at some sins than others? I’m sure we both agree He is not posturing: that somehow this apparent anger is a result of His Being. Thus, my question.
BR
Bob
To me any sin is an affront to an infinite being worthy of infinite punishment (hell). But the question is: why does God appear to get angrier at some sins? Surely, it flows from who He is. Thus, while all sins are worthy of hell, it appears that God’s justice entails some degrees of sin.
I am still working through this with everyone here and am learning from them. It is good conversation.
BR
Jim: this is suppose to be conversational? You mean I don't need to look stuff up in this concordance? I thought Brad was grading us. :)
Jeffro: speaking of looking things up. Can you tell me where to find that Adam and Eve were innocent? I keep searching for that and can't find the reference. selahV
Brad: Your illustration of Corrie Ten Boom and the hiding of the Jews is a great example concerning what is sin and what is not. Good example.
In class but be bach this afternoon. I am interested in some of the latest comments. Very thought-provoking and I have some questions whether God punished all sin equally according to His law and Jesus' response toward some sins.
BR
was that guttural "I'll be bach" like the Terminator? or do you intend to play the piano for us? I look forward to seeing you Bach. :)
Steve
Brad:
I know you'll be BACH this afternoon, but aren't you OFFENBACH earlier?
And, incidentally, thanks for the answer to my previous "question comment". You were right on cue, brother. Just like we rehearsed.
ooohhh, i think the bible does teach that hell will be a lot hotter for some than others. otherwise, why the need for judgement? just cast all the sinners into hell and let them fry like a sausage.
just as there will be rewards handed out to christians when their christian lives are judged at the bema seat judgement, so sinners will be judged according to thier evil works at the white throne judgement, and they will suffer accordingly.
of course, i plan on being in heaven. dont wanna even see hell.
volfan007
Hey folks.
Sorry 'bout the misspelling. That's what happens when you get in a hurry to go to class without checking for type errors.
Here's where I am on this. I think Jim is right, there appears to be times where Jesus implies hell will be hotter for some than others, this also makes sense of Rev. 20, as well as our understanding of justice which hopefully flows from God's Word (especially the OT law). Nevertheless, I don't think we can be dogmatic on it, either.
Moreover, Exodus is clear that some sins are punished differently by God. Stealing doesn’t require a penalty of death, but other sins do. Since God's law is a reflection of His nature, I assume this is telling us something about the nature of God with respect to different sins (His Nature requires different responses)...furthermore there appears to be times when deception is not viewed as sin, because of the conflict with other absolutes (God's command to Moses to tell Pharaoh the Israelites will only be going on a three-day journey, Rahab and the spies, Egyptian midwives).
I'm not sure this really matters much in eternity but it is interesting to ponder. I was kind of hoping a non-conflicting absolutists would bite but maybe another day:)
BR
Brad: Personally, I think sin orginates within oneself...as with satan. His originated within himself as he filled himself up with himself and believed that self was so much greater than all around that he was actually equal to if not above God.
So I think within Adam and Eve there was the innate self with the propensity to go either way. They chose to sin and became what they chose to be...sinners. Satan was made with all he needed to be the highest most beautiful angel in eternity. He filled himself up with thoughts of himself and wasn't satisfied with where he was.
Adam and Eve were given all they needed and more and they were not satisfied with all God gave so they wanted more.
God gives man and woman each other to love and cherish and they want more and deviation occurs.
Liars lie because they want more--prestige, power, honor--albeit undeserved--to gain a higher place for them in their need for self-grtification. I think sin that God hates is sin in which our sin flies in the face of all He is and has given us. We aren't content to live in and out of season, with and without.
Our ungratefulness. Our refusal to turn to Him but instead to our own self-centered, self-satisfying desires. These desires simmer within until they bubble over for another place to go.
Some sins I have committed, I truly did not know it was a sin till it was pointed out to me. And once it was--through scripture, preaching, reading, another person--not always a Christian--I don't think God looked at it the same way. I think He is ever changing and convicting me of how unholy I am and how much more of Him I need to fill myself with instead of my inflated self.
While C.S. Lewis points out that we as humans are born with a knowing of what is right and wrong, sometimes people are raised, brainwashed, and indoctrinated to believe what is wrong is right.
That is why the gospel of Jesus Christ is so powerful. His life within and without proclaimed cuts deeper into a cancerous core than anything on earth. No rules, no laws, no doctrine. Jesus Himself. That is why we all need rules, and laws and commandments and correction and exhortation.
I'm sorry I got to preaching...uh, writing...I just thought you'd want to chew on my stuff for a while. I'm so vain. selahV
brad,
well, wade still wont let me post comments on his blog. i was thinking that he might think different after his 40 days of whatever, but he still wont allow people to post who differ with him....who call him to the carpet about his running down what he calls jr. pastors and he attacks mid america baptist seminary....a good seminary...one of the finest. but, he would not allow my post to be seen. typical.
volfan007
Post a Comment