# Presumptuous Sins - receive a double portion of the wrath of God?



## pm (May 1, 2009)

In the link on Presumptuous Sins by Spurgon:

Presumptuous Sins

He says:



> And now, under the Christian dispensation, although in the sacrifice of our blessed Lord there is a great and precious atonement for presumptuous sins, whereby sinners who have sinned in this manner are made clean, yet, without doubt, presumptuous sinners, dying without pardon, must expect to receive a double portion of the wrath of God, and a more wonderful manifestation of the unutterable anguish of the torment of eternal punishment in the pit that is digged for the wicked.



Where is Scripture does Spurgon draw the statement:



> . . . must expect to receive a double portion of the wrath of God, and a more wonderful manifestation of the unutterable anguish of the torment of eternal punishment in the pit that is digged for the wicked.


----------



## Poimen (May 1, 2009)

The text quoted in context is Numbers 15:30 which does not seem to refer to the 'double portion' of which Spurgeon speaks.

Perhaps it is inspired by Luke 12:47-48? i.e. the few stripes for those who did not know the will of the master and the many for those who did.


----------



## chbrooking (May 1, 2009)

The language is probably more figurative, poetic, rhetorical than anything else. Undoubtedly they will have added presumption to their sin. But I don't think Sproul is thinking the torments of hell are meted out quantitatively in quite the way you are taking him. Jesus speaks of it being worse for some than others on the day of judgment, but just as all revelation is condescension for our understanding -- even calling hell's torment "fiery" is likely a figure, so I think we must understand this to mean little more than "worse".


----------



## PresbyDane (May 1, 2009)




----------



## KMK (May 1, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> The language is probably more figurative, poetic, rhetorical than anything else. Undoubtedly they will have added presumption to their sin. But I don't think Sproul is thinking the torments of hell are meted out quantitatively in quite the way you are taking him. Jesus speaks of it being worse for some than others on the day of judgment, but just as all revelation is condescension for our understanding -- even calling hell's torment "fiery" is likely a figure, so I think we must understand this to mean little more than "worse".



Obviously it is figurative, how can you double 'eternity'?


----------



## PresbyDane (May 1, 2009)

Are not all sins Presumptuous ?


----------



## Peairtach (May 1, 2009)

Hello Re4mdant.

Apparently, although all sins are wicked, some are worse than others. This is obviously not to give us license in the "little" ones.

Re the use of the word "presumptuous" in the KJV see Psalm 19:12-13 and II Peter 2:9-10.

Re some sins being worse than others, see Shorter Catechism Q.83.

Yours,
Richard.


----------



## PresbyDane (May 1, 2009)

thanks


----------



## EricP (May 1, 2009)

Spurgeon certainly had a flair for words. Yet not only did he preach on presumptuous sins (for example, sermon 135--see spurgeon.org for e-version), but Owen was no stranger either in his sermons (see 32) or in Mortification of Sin...If you ask me, I think in the original quotation above Spurgeon was not so much stratifying sin's punishment as stressing how forgiving God is EVEN of those repetitive "gee I really knew better" sins that all of us commit daily. "I do this almost every day even though I KNOW God disapproves and it's sin, and YET He still forgives me! Praise Him all the more!!!" I really do think He is far more loving and forgiving than we can possibly understand!


----------



## OPC'n (May 1, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Hello Re4mdant.
> 
> Apparently, although all sins are wicked, some are worse than others. This is obviously not to give us license in the "little" ones.
> 
> ...



But is that how the word presumptuous is being used in Scripture? I would have to agree that all sins are presumptuous except for those who have never heard the Gospel. Those who have heard the Gospel and reject (presumptuous sin) it will burn more than those who never heard it (non-presumptuous). Those who slaughtered millions of people and never heard the Gospel will burn less than those who were good citizens and yet rejected the Gospel when they heard it.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 1, 2009)

Verses 5-6


> Revelation 18
> 1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
> 
> 2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
> ...





> here in ylt 6Render to her as also she did render to you, and double to her doubles according to her works; in the cup that she did mingle mingle to her double.


----------



## KMK (May 2, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Hello Re4mdant.
> ...





> Exo 21:12 ¶He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. 14 *But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile;* thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.



Presumptuous sins are those that are committed premeditatedly. It is one thing to commit murder accidentally. It is another to commit murder in the passion of the moment. It is entirely another to meditate and plan to commit murder. For such a one, there was no city of refuge available, only death.


----------



## OPC'n (May 2, 2009)

KMK said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Tallach said:
> ...



We had a nurse who accidentally killed her patient with a medication because she put it through the wrong port. I wouldn't call that murder. I would call that a killing via accidental means. I think God thinks the same that's why He gave those who killed a person accidentally a place to be safe. I don't see it as a sin. It could be likened to losing control of your car on ice and killing another driver. Yes, you killed someone but you didn't murder thus committing a sin.


----------



## Idelette (May 2, 2009)

A couple of other passages to consider regarding this topic:

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." -James 3:1

I've read in several places that it can also be "a greater condemnation", however, I'm not familiar with the original Greek....so those with Greek knowledge can confirm or correct that.....

Also:

"And while all the people were listening, He said to the disciples, "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake offer long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation." -Luke 20:47

Also:

"If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." -1 John 5:16-18

This passage can be taken a number of ways; either referring to the Gnostic teachings that persistently denied the truth, or it can also refer to unrepentant sin leading to spiritual and/or physical death. This would be presumptuous sin.


----------

