# "The Greater Sin": Are There Degrees of Sin?



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Are there degrees of sin? What about the Roman Catholic distinction between “mortal” and “venial” sins? I attempt to explore these questions in the following post: 

*"The Greater Sin": Are There Degrees of Sin?*

Your servant,


----------



## Sven

Good post. I especially liked your discussion on the unpardonable sin; good analysis of the historical understanding. The WSC succinctly states the seriousness of sin and the fact that some sins are more serious than others. Q/A 83 "Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous? Some sins in themselves, and by reasons of several aggravations, are more heinous n the sight of God than others." Q/A 84 "What doth every sin deserve? Every sin deserveth God's wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come."


----------



## Christusregnat

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Are there degrees of sin? What about the Roman Catholic distinction between “mortal” and “venial” sins? I attempt to explore these questions in the following post:
> 
> *"The Greater Sin": Are There Degrees of Sin?*
> 
> Your servant,



Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important topic!

Cheers,


----------



## Pergamum

I like your last paragraph best, the application. I have known several who have "given up" on praying because they thought they were too bad to be saved.




Now,

If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Pergamum said:


> I like your last paragraph best, the application. I have known several who have "given up" on praying because they thought they were too bad to save.
> 
> Now,
> 
> If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.



Hey, Perg. Thanks for the remarks. I think there are different degrees of punishment and reward in glory. I recently suggested so on one of my posts ("Of the Last Judgment") and Dr. Craig Blomberg who's written an article against the idea of varying degrees of reward for the _Journal of the Evangelical Society_ commented on my posted and challenged me (see the comments section where we interact). I think his article does appropriately question some texts commonly used to justify varying degrees in reward. I also think he's motivated by a proper distaste for the kind of easy-believism that teaches one may make a decision for Christ, be assured of heaven, yet miss out on a few rewards. Nevertheless, I still think there are texts upon which one may build a good case for varying degrees of reward. I reference a sermon and some miscellaneous notes by Jonathan Edwards where he makes such a case.


----------



## charliejunfan

I believe in choosing that which causes the least amount of sin in any situation

Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.

This is what I believe Rahab did for the spies.


----------



## WaywardNowHome

Pergamum said:


> If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.



I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

WaywardNowHome said:


> I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.


Perhaps this view is borne from a humanistic understanding, in that there would be those in heaven enviously thinking, "Wow, look at that guy over there with his crowns!"

I think those in heaven will be perfectly content with their rewards whatever they may be, and there will be no sinful thoughts, for those in heaven will not want to sin.

AMR


----------



## TimV

> Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.



Are we as Christians ever really put into a situation where we have to choose to sin?


----------



## toddpedlar

TimV said:


> Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we as Christians ever really put into a situation where we have to choose to sin?
Click to expand...


I was going to comment the same thing. I don't think there's any reason to believe that, in fact, we are ever put into such situations. If we were, then since God ordains all things, it would be God that put us into a situation in which we had no choice but to sin. That would be contrary to God's character.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

WaywardNowHome said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.
Click to expand...


Joel,

I agree with your desire to protect the gospel of God's free grace from a system that introduces the idea of intrinsic human merit. Nevertheless, I'm not sure the idea of varying rewards in heaven is inconsistent with grace any more than the reality of varying degrees of gift and grace and prosperity in this life undermines grace. 

Perhaps these citations from Jonathan Edwards may prove helpful. They confirm what Patrick underscored above.“Every vessel that is cast into this ocean of happiness is full, though there are some vessels far larger than others; and there shall be no such thing as envy in heaven, but perfect love shall reign through the whole society. Those who are not so high in glory as others, will not envy those that are higher but they will have so great and strong and pure love to them, that they will rejoice in their superior happiness; their love to them will be such that they will rejoice that they are happier than themselves; so that instead of having a damp to their own happiness, it will add to it.” “Sermon VIII,” in _Works_, 2:902.

“Now the holier a man is, the more he loves _the same degree of the image_; so that the holiest in heaven will love that image of God they see in the least holy more than those do that are less holy; and that which makes it beyond any doubt that this superior happiness will be no damp to them, is this, that their superior happiness consists in their great humility, and in their greater love to them, and to God, and to Christ, whom the saints look upon as themselves. These things may be said of this, beside what may be said about every one being completely satisfied and full of happiness having as much as he is capable of enjoying or desiring; and also what may be said about their entire resignation; for God’s will is become so much their own that the fulfilling of his will, let it be what it may, fills them with inconceivable satisfaction (emphasis his). _The Works of Jonathan Edwards_ (1834; reprint, The Banner of Truth, 1974), 2:618. ​For a fuller defense of the idea of varying rewards in heaven, see Cornelius Venema, _The Promise of the Future_, 405-418, and Anthony Hoekema, _The Bible and the Future_, 262-64.

Hope this helps.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 07:59:21 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.
> 
> 
> 
> Are we as Christians ever really put into a situation where we have to choose to sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was going to comment the same thing. I don't think there's any reason to believe that, in fact, we are ever put into such situations. If we were, then since God ordains all things, it would be God that put us into a situation in which we had no choice but to sin. That would be contrary to God's character.
Click to expand...


Just to clarify, the statement in question is not affirmed in my post. I'm not sure why Charles made that assertion. It would seem to contradict Paul's affirmation,No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:13). ​Perhaps Charlie could clarify what he meant.


----------



## KMK

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we as Christians ever really put into a situation where we have to choose to sin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to comment the same thing. I don't think there's any reason to believe that, in fact, we are ever put into such situations. If we were, then since God ordains all things, it would be God that put us into a situation in which we had no choice but to sin. That would be contrary to God's character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to clarify, the statement in question is not affirmed in my post. I'm not sure why Charles made that assertion. It would seem to contradict Paul's affirmation,No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:13). ​Perhaps Charlie could clarify what he meant.
Click to expand...


What about this situation: A polygamous man is saved by the preaching of the Gospel. Does he sin by remaining polygamous, or does he sin by divorcing all but one wife? (I usually don't like 'what if' questions but this idea is new to me.)


----------



## TimV

> What about this situation: A polygamous man is saved by the preaching of the Gospel. Does he sin by remaining polygamous, or does he sin by divorcing all but one wife? (I usually don't like 'what if' questions but this idea is new to me.)



Polygamy isn't a sin.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Larger Catechism 139:
What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commadnment?
The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment ... are ... having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;b ...."
b. Mal. 2:14
Matt. 19:5



TimV said:


> What about this situation: A polygamous man is saved by the preaching of the Gospel. Does he sin by remaining polygamous, or does he sin by divorcing all but one wife? (I usually don't like 'what if' questions but this idea is new to me.)
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy isn't a sin.
Click to expand...


----------



## TimV

We've had this conversation here dozens of times, and I would be interested in hearing a leading Reformed theologian today agree with what the Lutherans did in PNG when I was there, and force new converts to divorce all their wives except the oldest. Especially on the two grounds that the WCF gives for permissible divorce.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Go find one then Tim.


----------



## toddpedlar

TimV said:


> What about this situation: A polygamous man is saved by the preaching of the Gospel. Does he sin by remaining polygamous, or does he sin by divorcing all but one wife? (I usually don't like 'what if' questions but this idea is new to me.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy isn't a sin.
Click to expand...


Sorry, bzzt. Wrong. The Bible is clear on this, as are the confessional standards.


----------



## TimV

> Go find one then Tim.



I started with Augustine, Aquinas and Luther, and they all agree polygamy is not always sinful. I'll move up to the Reformed camp later.

Reisinger



> A third change to the adultery commandment concerns polygamy. Under the Law of God given to Moses, polygamy was not considered adultery. In fact, the Law of Moses actually mandated that a man had to sleep with both wives if he took a second wife (Exodus 21:10, 11). I think any honest person will admit that a change from a law allowing, even if we make it a reluctant tolerance, polygamy to a law insisting on monogamy alone (Ephesians 5:22, 23) is more than just a surface change in the definition of adultery and marriage. John Murray clearly saw this problem, and because he was an extremely honest writer, frankly admitted what was at stake. He wrote his treatise on ethics attempting to prove that polygamy was just as sinful for David as it would be for us today. If that cannot be proven, and it surely cannot, then there are two canons of conduct, one for Israel and one for the Church, and Covenant Theology loses its foundation.


----------



## christiana

TimV said:


> Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we as Christians ever really put into a situation where we have to choose to sin?
Click to expand...


Romans 6:
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Are we not accountable? We are slaves to whomever we obey, are we not?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Moderator ruling.*
Tim,
You said you wanted to hear from a leading Reformed theologian today. Now you are polling dead theologians. If you want to talk to a leading Reformed theologian, _go talk to one!_ Call one up. As far as discussing it _here_, you yourself have said the board has been over this ground before. The moderators will confer on this, but for now, my ruling is that you will not pursue this further on this thread, or open a new one about it in particular. 



TimV said:


> Go find one then Tim.
> 
> 
> 
> I started with Augustine, Aquinas and Luther, and they all agree polygamy is not always sinful. I'll move up to the Reformed camp later.
> 
> Reisinger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A third change to the adultery commandment concerns polygamy. Under the Law of God given to Moses, polygamy was not considered adultery. In fact, the Law of Moses actually mandated that a man had to sleep with both wives if he took a second wife (Exodus 21:10, 11). I think any honest person will admit that a change from a law allowing, even if we make it a reluctant tolerance, polygamy to a law insisting on monogamy alone (Ephesians 5:22, 23) is more than just a surface change in the definition of adultery and marriage. John Murray clearly saw this problem, and because he was an extremely honest writer, frankly admitted what was at stake. He wrote his treatise on ethics attempting to prove that polygamy was just as sinful for David as it would be for us today. If that cannot be proven, and it surely cannot, then there are two canons of conduct, one for Israel and one for the Church, and Covenant Theology loses its foundation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## KMK

OK, forget about polygamy. 

Obviously, God is not going to lead someone to choose between sins. But, from a pastoral standpoint, many do not follow God at all times. Especially in the case of a brand new convert who has been busy entangling himself in sin for years there might be situations where he might have to choose between the 'lesser of two evils'. No?


----------



## Rogerant

*Degrees of Sin and Rewards in Heaven*

As for degrees of sin and greater sins, Sin is Sin! As Christians we are to to mortify all sin in "our own" life, including gossip, slander and judging the reprobate. The sure sign of a Christian not mortifying the deeper sin in his "own life" is that he is preoccupied with the sin of "others." And the evangelical Church has preoccupied itself with the sexual sins of the lost, while worshipping the sin of the exaltation of their own abilty to refrain from such.

As for rewards in Heaven. When one is saved they receive the benefits of Christ's passive and "active" obedience. The demand from Heaven for justification is that one must come with a bank account "full" of good works. Man was created to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Man must stand before God innocent of transgressions, but also must have a bank account of good works that represent his responsibility to glorify God. 

Christ's passive obedience by His death on the cross accounts for our sins. The benefits of His active obedience as our surety fulfilled man's responsibility to glorify God. Since His work is perfect and infinate in value, we come before God with a full bank account of good works through substitution.

And through this subsitution we receive with Abraham the inheritance and rewards that Christ earns for us.

Yes, the saints receive crowns and rewards that are underserved. and they throw the crowns to the feet of the Lamb in Revelation 4:10

"The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power:"

Those who work for rewards, work for themselves, not for Christ.

And what better reward is there, but to be able to worship the Lord in His presence and to know Him in all of His fulness?


----------



## Scott1

Yes, there are degrees of sin. While all sin rightly deserves God's punishment, some are worse in nature, degree and effect than others.



> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Question 150: Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
> 
> Answer: All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.
> 
> Question 151: What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?
> 
> Answer: Sins receive their aggravations, From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many. From the nature and quality of the offense: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance. From circumstances of time and place: if on the Lord's day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.
> 
> Question 152: What does every sin deserve at the hands of God?
> 
> Answer: Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserves his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.


----------



## rpavich

I would just like to comment here as the "new guy."

I'm thankful that we have godly men who've come before us and set out a "standard" to refer back to such as the WCF.

I come from several churches where it was a free for all and every opinion was equally valid, and there were no documents to refer to...it was just a spiritual volleyball game...

I thank God for things like the WCF that was set down so specifically and comprehensively.

Ok...back to the discussion....


----------



## Skyler

WaywardNowHome said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.
Click to expand...


Everyone _is_ there only by the grace of God; nevertheless, I think Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 3 that our reward depend upon what we build upon that foundation.



> What about this situation: A polygamous man is saved by the preaching of the Gospel. Does he sin by remaining polygamous, or does he sin by divorcing all but one wife? (I usually don't like 'what if' questions but this idea is new to me.)



Yes, if he remains polygamous, he sins; no, if he divorces all but one wife, he is not sinning(assuming polygamy falls under the category of sexual immorality, which I think it does). This is part of the reason the exception clause is in there.



KMK said:


> Obviously, God is not going to lead someone to choose between sins. But, from a pastoral standpoint, many do not follow God at all times. Especially in the case of a brand new convert who has been busy entangling himself in sin for years there might be situations where he might have to choose between the 'lesser of two evils'. No?



I'm not sure I understand. Could you explain what you're thinking of?


----------



## KMK

A man gives his word to his employer that he will work on Sunday. On Wed he gets saved. Should he break his promise or honor the Sabbath?


----------



## Skyler

KMK said:


> A man gives his word to his employer that he will work on Sunday. On Wed he gets saved. Should he break his promise or honor the Sabbath?



Is it wrong to break a promise to sin, especially if it's between two men? I don't know that it is. Unless you have a Scripture reference you're thinking of?


----------



## cih1355

If some sins are more serious than others, then does this mean that God considers some people to be more wicked than others? Would God consider my unbelieving next door neighbor to be not as wicked as Adolf Hitler?


----------



## KMK

Joshua said:


> By the way, it should be noted that extreme scenarios make for bad policy.



Exactly. I am not arguing against the policy itself. As I said, I agree that God would never _lead_ a man to choose between two sins. However, we often lead ourselves into a myriad of sins. As a pastor, I deal often with people who are being converted and they are so entangled in sin that these extreme scenarios often occur.

I think the point you are making is that a man who broke his promise in favor of keeping the Sabbath is not choosing between two degrees of sins, but is not sinning at all because he made the right choice. I'm not sure I totally agree, but I will drop the issue as I don't want to hijack the thread or promote bad policy.


----------



## KMK

This thread is closed for the time being.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*The thread is open; please stay on topic. 
Moderators ruling.*
On sinfulness of polygamy. This issue has been discussed before, and it is the moderators consensus that it is not to be questioned and is out of bounds for challenging on PB. WCF 24.1. "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time." If you have an itch to discuss this do so somewhere else. Also, if any of you have real concerns about the burden of the confessional view, take it up with you denominations and seek a change. Untill then, please don't campaign here for it.


----------



## rpavich

> If you have an itch to discuss this do so somewhere else. Also, if any of you have real concerns about the burden of the confessional view,



Q: Does "being confessional" mean that we hold to a confession (like the WCF) where a church that doesn't use one of the confessions would be "non-confessional"?

I'm just asking; this is all new to me.


----------



## Peairtach

If all sins were equally heinous would we be going around in a permanent state of shock?


----------



## Pergamum

We should probably already be in a state of shock even for our "small" sins if we truly sensed their enormity.


----------



## Grillsy

Richard Tallach said:


> If all sins were equally heinous would we be going around in a permanent state of shock?



Great point.
The all "sin is sin" thing came into popularity fairly recently in modern American evangelism. This is was in part due the fact that many churches had shunned church discipline and where therefore resigned to tolerate even the most heinous of sins and brush them aside saying "all in sin is sin". "Besides you may be homosexual but I drive over the speed limit in God's eyes it is the same thing" That was an actual quote from a pastor's Bible lesson and it was directed to an open and unrepentant homosexual.


----------



## Rogerant

Grillsy said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all sins were equally heinous would we be going around in a permanent state of shock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great point.
> The all "sin is sin" thing came into popularity fairly recently in modern American evangelism. This is was in part due the fact that many churches had shunned church discipline and where therefore resigned to tolerate even the most heinous of sins and brush them aside saying "all in sin is sin". "Besides you may be homosexual but I drive over the speed limit in God's eyes it is the same thing" That was an actual quote from an ex-pastor of mine (in the Wesleyan Holiness churches) to an open and unrepentant homosexual.
Click to expand...


So then, we give a pass to unrepentant speeders and church gossipers? And who measures what is acceptable for church discipline. Yes there are some sins that are more damaging than others. Who decides on the tier system?


----------



## Grillsy

Rogerant said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all sins were equally heinous would we be going around in a permanent state of shock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great point.
> The all "sin is sin" thing came into popularity fairly recently in modern American evangelism. This is was in part due the fact that many churches had shunned church discipline and where therefore resigned to tolerate even the most heinous of sins and brush them aside saying "all in sin is sin". "Besides you may be homosexual but I drive over the speed limit in God's eyes it is the same thing" That was an actual quote from an ex-pastor of mine (in the Wesleyan Holiness churches) to an open and unrepentant homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, we give a pass to unrepentant speeders and church gossipers? And who measures what is acceptable for church discipline. Yes there are some sins that are more damaging than others. Who decides on the tier system?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry I don't remember saying that we give a pass to any type of sin? Where did I say that?

The point of what I was saying is that in modern American churches the "all sin is sin" routine is used to soften the guilt of sins rather than convict the sinner.

As far as the "tier system" as you put it. Church discipline is administered by the elders of the Church and it is their responsibility to judge wisely and righteously according the Scriptures. Also, if you want to see that certain sins are greater, read the Scriptures where it is made very clear that certain sins are more grievous. In fact one sin in particular comes to mind...


----------



## John Weathersby

WaywardNowHome said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.
Click to expand...


Why would you say you could "never" agree; if you cannot know all that is to be known and scripture does not directly contradict or speak against the topic wouldn’t you be saying you're unwilling to agree with scripture?
1 Cor 15:41/42, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead”

Also, if our works cannot save us, why then would 2 Cor 5:10 state


> For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.


 if were saved by Christ’s Righteousness and our sin is as far as the East is from the West, why would we ALL receive what is due for what we’ve done? I believe these leave at least large enough question that we cannot say ‘not possible’ for varying degrees of reward in heaven.


----------



## Skyler

John Weathersby said:


> WaywardNowHome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you say you could "never" agree; if you cannot know all that is to be known and scripture does not directly contradict or speak against the topic wouldn’t you be saying you're unwilling to agree with scripture?
> 1 Cor 15:41/42, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead”
> 
> Also, if our works cannot save us, why then would 2 Cor 5:10 state
> 
> 
> 
> For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if were saved by Christ’s Righteousness and our sin is as far as the East is from the West, why would we ALL receive what is due for what we’ve done? I believe these leave at least large enough question that we cannot say ‘not possible’ for varying degrees of reward in heaven.
Click to expand...


I hope you didn't mean what you just said.

We are saved by Christ's righteousness; that's the only way our works would mean anything. Our works can't save us, because we have to be saved before we can do any good works!


----------



## John Weathersby

Skyler said:


> John Weathersby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaywardNowHome said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say you could "never" agree; if you cannot know all that is to be known and scripture does not directly contradict or speak against the topic wouldn’t you be saying you're unwilling to agree with scripture?
> 1 Cor 15:41/42, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead”
> 
> Also, if our works cannot save us, why then would 2 Cor 5:10 state
> 
> 
> 
> For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if were saved by Christ’s Righteousness and our sin is as far as the East is from the West, why would we ALL receive what is due for what we’ve done? I believe these leave at least large enough question that we cannot say ‘not possible’ for varying degrees of reward in heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you didn't mean what you just said.
> 
> We are saved by Christ's righteousness; that's the only way our works would mean anything. Our works can't save us, because we have to be saved before we can do any good works!
Click to expand...


Meant it. But read again, my whole point is that we CANNOT be saved by works, so why would the saved in 2 Cor 5:10 appear before the judgment seat? If we're righteous in Christ what’s to be judged? If our works are judged it CANNOT be for our salvation because we cannot add anything to our salvation. So, I am proposing that there could be varying degrees of reward and that we cannot, using scripture, close off to that idea. I never said works save.


----------



## toddpedlar

John Weathersby said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Weathersby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say you could "never" agree; if you cannot know all that is to be known and scripture does not directly contradict or speak against the topic wouldn’t you be saying you're unwilling to agree with scripture?
> 1 Cor 15:41/42, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead”
> 
> Also, if our works cannot save us, why then would 2 Cor 5:10 state if were saved by Christ’s Righteousness and our sin is as far as the East is from the West, why would we ALL receive what is due for what we’ve done? I believe these leave at least large enough question that we cannot say ‘not possible’ for varying degrees of reward in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you didn't mean what you just said.
> 
> We are saved by Christ's righteousness; that's the only way our works would mean anything. Our works can't save us, because we have to be saved before we can do any good works!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meant it. But read again, my whole point is that we CANNOT be saved by works, so why would the saved in 2 Cor 5:10 appear before the judgment seat? If we're righteous in Christ what’s to be judged? If our works are judged it CANNOT be for our salvation because we cannot add anything to our salvation. So, I am proposing that there could be varying degrees of reward and that we cannot, using scripture, close off to that idea. I never said works save.
Click to expand...


Then maybe it would have been better for you to say:

Works cannot save us. Then why did Paul write 2 Cor 5:10? Because there are varying degrees... 

That would have been much clearer. As your words stand, you seem to be arguing that works do save us.


----------



## John Weathersby

toddpedlar said:


> John Weathersby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you didn't mean what you just said.
> 
> We are saved by Christ's righteousness; that's the only way our works would mean anything. Our works can't save us, because we have to be saved before we can do any good works!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meant it. But read again, my whole point is that we CANNOT be saved by works, so why would the saved in 2 Cor 5:10 appear before the judgment seat? If we're righteous in Christ what’s to be judged? If our works are judged it CANNOT be for our salvation because we cannot add anything to our salvation. So, I am proposing that there could be varying degrees of reward and that we cannot, using scripture, close off to that idea. I never said works save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe it would have been better for you to say:
> 
> Works cannot save us. Then why did Paul write 2 Cor 5:10? Because there are varying degrees...
> 
> That would have been much clearer. As your words stand, you seem to be arguing that works do save us.
Click to expand...


humm... I really don’t know how to make it more clear, I don’t mean to be unclear  because as I said, I DO NOT believe works save. In fact scripture clearly asserts this fact (Eph 2:9). This is why I say that the judgment of ALL spoken of in 2 Cor 5:10.


> The scripture states, For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ


, I believe that ALL is universal. However, what I am asserting is that the elect are already saved; but the scripture states that "receive what is due for what he has done in the body" which isn’t salvation, if speaking of works, but rather varying degrees of reward within the salvation we've already been granted. 

Better?


----------



## toddpedlar

John Weathersby said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Weathersby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meant it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it would have been better for you to say:
> 
> Works cannot save us. Then why did Paul write 2 Cor 5:10? Because there are varying degrees...
> 
> That would have been much clearer. As your words stand, you seem to be arguing that works do save us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> humm... I really don’t know how to make it more clear, I don’t mean to be unclear  because as I said, I DO NOT believe works save.
Click to expand...


Yes, NOW you have said this. You were not, though, so clear in post #42, which is what I was referring to when I said you should not have implied that works can save.



> In fact scripture clearly asserts this fact (Eph 2:9). This is why I say that the judgment of ALL spoken of in 2 Cor 5:10.
> 
> 
> 
> The scripture states, For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ
> 
> 
> 
> , I believe that ALL is universal. However, what I am asserting is that the elect are already saved; but the scripture states that "receive what is due for what he has done in the body" which isn’t salvation, if speaking of works, but rather varying degrees of reward within the salvation we've already been granted.
> 
> Better?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I thought this might bear some light on the subject so let me quote something from a book I am reading. 



> It is the Spirit alone who sanctifies, but as human beings are not sticks or stones their activity is elicited to the fullest extent. The key text is Philippians 2:11-13. Paul asssigns tasks so as not to indulge in the sluggishness of the flesh, but to correct sloth. "But enjoining fear and carefulness, he so humbles them that they remember what they are bidden to do is God's own work." To avoid any semblance of synergism, Calvin notes that "believers act passively, so to speak," by which he means capacitated from heaven so as to be able to claim no credit to themselves. *As for the "reward" of good works, Calvin repeatedly cites Augustine's maxim: "God does not crown our merits but his own gifts" (2.5.5). Thus, "[God] rewards, as if they were our own virtues, those graces which he bestows upon us because he makes them ours" (2.5.2).*
> 
> We do the things for which God receives praise because (1) "whatever God out of his loving-kindness does in us is ours" and (2)"ours is the mind, ours is the will, ours the striving, which he directs toward the good" (2.5.15). God's grace in regeneration works efficaciously: correcting, reforming, renewing, moving, acting, impelling, bearing, keeping the human will. The idea of human merit is thus radically excluded, though human beings are significantly engaged in participation in the renewal process.



A Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes (essays and analysis)
p. 316 Chapter 13 The Law and the Spirit of Christ by David Clyde Jones


----------



## Skyler

Sorry John, I was in a hurry and read your post too fast. I get it now.


----------



## Peairtach

Pergamum said:


> We should probably already be in a state of shock even for our "small" sins if we truly sensed their enormity.



We are, when God shows us their enormity. I'm glad I'm not always in a state of conviction of sin. 

As we are sanctified we should become more sensitive to sin, even little sins -a permanent state of shock would not be profitable, and the Bible doesn't seem to make it a mark of God's grace.


----------



## charliejunfan

I would like to clarify concerning my post on page 1-

First of all I would like to say that I misunderstood the discussion taking place therefore my post was, I believe, off topic anyway.  (sorry)

Here is what I posted-

"I believe in choosing that which causes the least amount of sin in any situation

Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.

This is what I believe Rahab did for the spies."

Clarification---

What I am meaning to say is that there are "lesser of two Evils lifestyles", maybe SINS was a bad word.

For an example, should a person live without debt by not going to college but because of that decision not have a job that makes enough to support the church, the poor, and maybe their own family?
OR
Should a person live with debt so that they can go college and have a better job so that they can better support the church, the poor, and their own family?

This is a simple and most likely faulty example but I think you all will see what I am getting at, and of course the presuppositions behind such questions determine the questions themselves so those may be visible as well.

I know this was off topic, so no need to discuss
If any of you would like to correct me in thinking that debt is a sin or what have you then feel free to Private Message me, thank you


----------



## John Weathersby

toddpedlar said:


> John Weathersby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it would have been better for you to say:
> 
> Works cannot save us. Then why did Paul write 2 Cor 5:10? Because there are varying degrees...
> 
> That would have been much clearer. As your words stand, you seem to be arguing that works do save us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> humm... I really don’t know how to make it more clear, I don’t mean to be unclear  because as I said, I DO NOT believe works save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, NOW you have said this. You were not, though, so clear in post #42, which is what I was referring to when I said you should not have implied that works can save.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact scripture clearly asserts this fact (Eph 2:9). This is why I say that the judgment of ALL spoken of in 2 Cor 5:10.
> 
> 
> 
> The scripture states, For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> , I believe that ALL is universal. However, what I am asserting is that the elect are already saved; but the scripture states that "receive what is due for what he has done in the body" which isn’t salvation, if speaking of works, but rather varying degrees of reward within the salvation we've already been granted.
> 
> Better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

Admittedly my brain is liquefied today, but... I've quoted below my post from 42


> Meant it. But read again, my whole point is that we CANNOT be saved by works, so why would the saved in 2 Cor 5:10 appear before the judgment seat? If we're righteous in Christ what’s to be judged? If our works are judged it CANNOT be for our salvation because we cannot add anything to our salvation. So, I am proposing that there could be varying degrees of reward and that we cannot, using scripture, close off to that idea. I never said works save.



I do not see how you'd say that I am advocating works based salvation in that post.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 08:54:00 EST-----



Skyler said:


> Sorry John, I was in a hurry and read your post too fast. I get it now.



Skyler, I was configuring a new server today that was configured static but I pulgged it into a DNS netorwk and coudent figure out why I couldent see ETH0. LOL so my brain was liquified all day.

But no worries, If I was advocating works based salvation I would expect to be rebuked and corrected~

Praise God that he elected us!


----------



## Skyler

John Weathersby said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry John, I was in a hurry and read your post too fast. I get it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler, I was configuring a new server today that was configured static but I pulgged it into a DNS netorwk and coudent figure out why I couldent see ETH0. LOL so my brain was liquified all day.
Click to expand...


Oops! 

It strikes me that I am probably one of the few who doesn't think that that excuse is unintelligible because of the liquification... lol.



> Praise God that he elected us!



You're not saying he elected us to earn our salvation by works, right? Just checking.


----------



## John Weathersby

Skyler said:


> John Weathersby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry John, I was in a hurry and read your post too fast. I get it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler, I was configuring a new server today that was configured static but I pulgged it into a DNS netorwk and coudent figure out why I couldent see ETH0. LOL so my brain was liquified all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops!
> 
> It strikes me that I am probably one of the few who doesn't think that that excuse is unintelligible because of the liquification... lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Praise God that he elected us!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not saying he elected us to earn our salvation by works, right? Just checking.
Click to expand...

 oh man, no I am not saying that. we can do nothing to add to our salvation. That is the premise of my position on the verse quoted.


----------



## Pergamum

Richard Tallach said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should probably already be in a state of shock even for our "small" sins if we truly sensed their enormity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are, when God shows us their enormity. I'm glad I'm not always in a state of conviction of sin.
> 
> As we are sanctified we should become more sensitive to sin, even little sins -a permanent state of shock would not be profitable, and the Bible doesn't seem to make it a mark of God's grace.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's a good point. The devil certainly likes to remind us of our sinfulness in order to defeat us continually.


----------



## toddpedlar

John Weathersby said:


> Admittedly my brain is liquefied today, but... I've quoted below my post from 42
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meant it. But read again, my whole point is that we CANNOT be saved by works, so why would the saved in 2 Cor 5:10 appear before the judgment seat? If we're righteous in Christ what’s to be judged? If our works are judged it CANNOT be for our salvation because we cannot add anything to our salvation. So, I am proposing that there could be varying degrees of reward and that we cannot, using scripture, close off to that idea. I never said works save.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see how you'd say that I am advocating works based salvation in that post.
Click to expand...


I am sorry, I gave the wrong reference. Your post #42 was fine. I wasn't
referring to that.

My statement about your confusing language was in post #40, quoted here:



> Also, *if our works cannot save us*, why then would 2 Cor 5:10 state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *if were saved by Christ’s Righteousness and our sin is as far as the East is from the West, why would we ALL receive what is due for what we’ve done?* I believe these leave at least large enough question that we cannot say ‘not possible’ for varying degrees of reward in heaven.
Click to expand...


That statement is very odd. You say "if our works cannot save us"... I'm not sure what else I am to make of that, when you go on from that statement to quote 2 Cor 5:10, and then furthermore ask "If we're saved by Christ's righteousness, then why would we ALL receive what is due for what we've done?"

That's unclear *at best. *- and I truly believe you don't advocate works-righteousness - I was only trying to point out to you some very unclear language that you used that could lead to that conclusion. One could very well draw from whe portion quoted above that you believe that works play a role in our salvation (for, you seem to be asking, why otherwise would 2 Cor 5:10 say what it does?). I'm still not sure how to understand what you wrote in the quoted portion.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

A church that does not hold confessional views is unconfessional; regardless of whether they formally have a confession or not. Clear a mud? If you want to discuss this start a thread on confessionalism, maybe in the wading pool since this is new to you (folks are supposed to be kinder gentler in the wading pool).



rpavich said:


> If you have an itch to discuss this do so somewhere else. Also, if any of you have real concerns about the burden of the confessional view,
> 
> 
> 
> Q: Does "being confessional" mean that we hold to a confession (like the WCF) where a church that doesn't use one of the confessions would be "non-confessional"?
> 
> I'm just asking; this is all new to me.
Click to expand...


----------



## dudley

*All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous*

I am an ex Roman catholic and now a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant. In Roman Catholicism their were mortal and venial sins and a person with a mortal sin could be condemned to hell. I now am a Presbyterian and adhere to the Westminster standards. 

The Westminster Larger Catechism says:
Question 150: Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
Answer: All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

However as a Protestant and a Presbyterian now I believe Justification by faith alone and that is the essential difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant church. R.C. Sproul explains this well: “The Roman Catholic view of justification [is that] God declares a person to be just when justice (or righteousness) inheres in the person. The person, under divine analysis or scrutiny, is found to be just. God justifies the just. …By stark and radical contrast the Reformation view of justification is that God declares a person just based upon something [external to them], something not inherent in the person: the imputed righteousness of Christ.” 

I think of the good thief on the cross next to Christ and as a Calvinist Presbyterian I believe in the 5 points of Calvinism, that man is basically depraved and we are saved by the amazing grace of God when we are connected to Christ by faith and justification by that faith alone. 

In grace,
Dudley


----------

