# Are Secret Sins for Real?



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 23, 2014)

How would you prove from the Bible that we have secret sins in contrast to the idea that all our sinning is conscious?


----------



## py3ak (Jan 23, 2014)

I'd start with Psalm 19:12.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 23, 2014)

I'm sorry, I was kind of tired when I asked that question. The truth is I've always believed in secret sins and I have searched the Scripture for proof for ages. I also have examined the Reformed Confessions and read commentaries on them concerning good works and the infirmities and weaknesses found in them, and I'm surprised Psalm 19:12 is never quoted as proof.

This may have to do with the fact that when the Bible talks about secret thoughts or sins, it always seems to mean man trying to conceal his sin from God -- not his sin being concealed from himself. As far as I know, Psalm 19:12 is the only exception, since it starts, "Who can understand his errors?". Psalm 90:8 does not count.

Other proof I've found for secret sins are the following,

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and *all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags*; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isaiah 64:2)

"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, *Make you perfect in every good work* to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (Hebrews 13:20-21)

I don't count verses that teach God won't justify us even if we have kept His law perfectly for the simple fact that a former sinner needs his old sins atoned for before he can be justified and for that we will always depend on Christ.

Now, here are my biggest struggles with this view of secret sins. How do you explain the following verses?

"Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." (John 9:41)

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17)


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 23, 2014)

What do you mean by "secret sins?"


----------



## David Pope (Jan 23, 2014)

SolaScriptura said:


> What do you mean by "secret sins?"



I'm confused too, and would find a definition helpful. Thanks.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 23, 2014)

David Pope said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean by "secret sins?"
> ...



Just read my OP. If the contrast/opposite to secret sin is conscious sin, then secret sin means unconscious sin.


----------



## KMK (Jan 23, 2014)

Are you asking if it is possible to commit sins of omission?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

KMK said:


> Are you asking if it is possible to commit sins of omission?



I'm not sure what you mean by "of omission". If you mean the Catholic teaching of sin of omission which means a failure to do something one can and ought to do,_ then yes,_ _it is included, but that's not the point_. I am asking whether every sin committed by a person must be _conciously perceived_ like in John 9:41 and James 4:17 above; that there is no sin committed that is _hidden from us _(whether by _lack of understanding _or _a defiled conscience_).

I believe the thoughts of the heart can flow into our minds without us ever realizing our _evil_ _intentions_ behind them.

So, for example, I may be praying to God out of a pure conscience, but I am not seeing all my intentions (including both good and evil) in my thoughts.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

Another way of saying that a person does not see all of his evil intentions is that he is sinning without knowing it is sin.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

I think I may have got the right answer now. There is a way to harmonize all of the Scriptures I laid down above. And that key is to think that our conscience can never be so silenced that it is _completely_ silent. And since our conscience was put into our hearts in perfect comformity to God's law, it informs us of all our sins and good deeds. The voice of the conscience is subject to change, it can be loud or quiet, but it can never be _completely_ silenced.

Why does this fact harmonize all of the Scripture above? Because conscience does not give us understanding on _how_ evil or how good we are, it simply tells us if we _are_ evil _or not_. We can still say our best works are imperfect and defiled by sin even when done with a pure conscience, because conscience does not give us _the eyes of understanding_ to see _the breadth and length and height and depth_ of our sin.

I am completely content with this solution.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

So, Psalm 19:12, for example, does not mean we don't know some of our sin _when committing it_. It means that we either cannot count _the number_ of our sins (like in Psalm 40:12) or that we cannot see _the depth_ of our sins.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

It's funny how, when I finally decide to make a thread about this, I come up with a solution to it by myself. Oh well.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

By the way, this view of conscience necessarily implies that the conscience _cannot _ be defiled in the sense that it can become unconformed to the law of God and starts accusing us of good things or excusing us of sins. If anyone insists it does, please, give me all Scripture proof you can come up with, because I don't know of any!

The only one that I had in mind was John 16:2, "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that *whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God **service*." However, even this passage should be understood as that in the last days it will be taught by a variety of religions (if not the One World Religion) that killing heretics who are against their religion, especially, the Church of Christ, is to be persecuted to death. The idea one should _not_ get from this text is that those people's consciences have been so seared they don't know right or wrong _at all_ (or any passage of Scripture that teaches the "searing of one's conscience" for that matter).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

So, contrary to what I've seen so often taught (John MacArthur for example), we SHOULD equate the conscience with the voice of God or the law of God. Conscience is NOT simply a human faculty that judges your actions and thoughts by the light of the highest standard you perceive. But again, remember conscience should not be confused with our "eyes of understanding" that tell us _how_ sinful sin is and _how_ blessed holiness is (but, of course, our understanding can and is very lacking).


----------



## Tirian (Jan 24, 2014)

The conscience can be seared though, and dulled to the detection of sin. Trying to follow your thread here: I think you are asking if we commit sins that we are not conscious of? And if we are not conscious of them, are we therefore "blind" to them and subsequently not held accountable for them via John 9:41?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

Tirian said:


> The conscience can be seared though, and dulled to the detection of sin.



I agree, but not to the point of _complete_ silence. Read everything I've said here. Also, if you want to insist that conscience can be _completely_ silenced, then start throwing verses.



> Trying to follow your thread here: I think you are asking if we commit sins that we are not conscious of? And if we are not conscious of them, are we therefore "blind" to them and subsequently not held accountable for them via John 9:41?



Exactly, that was my former position; that we could sin and not realize it whatsoever (i.e., a secret sin _to ourselves_) and still be held accountable for it.

However, I was able to harmonize all of Scripture in my knowledge regarding this topic, and thus changed my view. Just carefully read what I've written here.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

I will still clarify _conscience_ and _understanding_ in regards to the unsatisfaction of God toward even our best works (although through faith in Christ they are accepted),

The reason why even our best works, whether done in pure conscience or not, are as filthy rags before God is NOT because there is some sin associated with them that we are totally unaware of (i.e., a _secret_ sin, in the sense that it is _secret_ _to ourselves_). Rather, it is because our _understanding_ of _the heinousness_ our sins (that we are aware of -- and there is none that the law of God in ours hearts would not inform us about _when we are violating it_), is lacking and imperfect.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 24, 2014)

You might wish to look at Leviticus 5:17ff before proceeding too far.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

py3ak said:


> You might wish to look at Leviticus 5:17ff before proceeding too far.



That verse silenced me,

"And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; *though he wist it not*, *yet is he guilty*, and shall bear his iniquity." (Leviticus 5:17)

Also,

"If a soul commit a trespass, and *sin through ignorance*, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering." (Leviticus 5:15)

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall *sin through ignorance* against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:" (Leviticus 4:2)

"But *he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes*, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48)

Hmmm................ Ok, now I need help in harmonizing those verses with these,

"Jesus said, "*If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin*; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." (John 9:41)

"Therefore *to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin*." (James 4:17)


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 24, 2014)

I'd also appreciate some clarification on this passage,

"Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day" (Acts 23:1)

Does "until this day" include Paul's _pre_conversion life?


----------



## py3ak (Jan 24, 2014)

Samuel, I'm not sure how much help I can be, but I'll take a stab at it. Perhaps the puerility of my effort will serve as chum to bring up the exegetical sharks. At any rate, I'll try to bear in mind John Murray's trenchant hermeneutical principle, "each text contains its own denotative scope and universe of discourse."

James 4:17 doesn't seem to me to be a problem. To sin against knowledge is an aggravation of sinfulness, whether with a sin of omission or commission (therefore "ignorance" is put forward as a palliation but not exculpation of guilt on a couple of occasions, Acts 3; 1 Timothy 1). The text doesn't say that ignorance entirely excuses sin, though knowledge certainly aggravates it. Thomas Manton has this to say:



> In this verse the apostle taketh off the prejudice and cavil whereby his admonition might be slighted and evaded. They might reply, We have no need to be taught such a plain lesson; we know that life is short, and that God's providence governeth all things. Do you, saith the apostle, know all this? then you are the more obliged to subject your desires to his will and pleasure, which he proveth by this general rule.



In other words, in this verse as constantly throughout his epistle, James incites us not to let faith or knowledge lie barren, but to affect our practice. It's not part of his scope to affirm that knowledge is _essential_ to sin, only that knowledge not practiced simply leads us deeper into sin.

For John 9:41, it needs to be remembered that this isn't an isolated apophthegm pronouncing general truth, but occurs specifically in answer to a hostile question from the Pharisees. After Christ reveals that he has come for judgment, that the blind may see and the sighted may be blinded, they demand if they also are blind. Christ then retorts that if they were blind, they would have no sin; but since they say they see, their sin remains. _Have no sin_ is contrasted to _your sin remains_. The words of Christ imply then, not that the intellectually blind (ignorant) aren't capable of contracting guilt, but that the Pharisees who won't admit their problem, close themselves off from the solution. And so George Hutcheson says:



> ...their being sensible of misery, were an evidence that they lay near mercy... "If ye were blind," (in your own esteem, and coming to me with it) "ye should have no sin," to wit, in comparison of your guilt now, and I would really pardon and heal you, and it should not "remain," as is after declared. Men's conceit of their own condition as good enough is a sin against the very remedy....



The physically blind man was healed in body and soul; the sins of the sighted and learned Pharisees remain upon them: the difference is their attitude to Christ.

As for Acts 23:1, I do think that Paul had endeavored to follow the dictates of his conscience before he was converted. He thought that he _ought_ to do many things contrary to Jesus of Nazareth, after all. Obviously he was set straight on the Damascus road with regard to some of what he thought; and obviously from Romans 7 there was a continual struggle with sin, so that his good conscience undoubtedly had as much to do with confessing sin and being forgiven as it did with consistent obedience. 

You might find some help in Calvin's _Institutes_ Book 2, Chapter 2, Sections 24 & 25. Thomas Manton's commentary on James, from which I quoted above, has a brief sketch of the Puritan doctrine of the conscience on 1:22 (Observation 3).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 25, 2014)

Thanks, Ruben! I'll be back when I've studied those chapters thoroughly and tried to harmonize all of Scripture in my current knowledge regarding this topic. Things just got very complicated.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Jan 25, 2014)

To *know* to do good, and doeth it not, to him is it sin. So if we did something unaware it was wrong, according to God's holy writ, would it be held as a sin in His eyes?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 25, 2014)

I studied John 9:41 first. It seems that Jesus is known for His ironic responses to people who are unwilling to receive Him. We already get the sense of Jesus' words at verse 39 where He states, "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind."

The "they which see not" refers to all kind of blindness (both spiritual and physical) that keeps men from knowing Christ. Likewise, "might see" refers to enlightenment that is necessary for this end of knowing Christ. Whereas, "they which see" ironically refers to men like the Pharisees who _claim_ to know the Messiah, but yet don't receive, nor recognize Him. "Might be made blind" means Christ's judgment of hardening toward unbelievers like the Pharisees, who won't receive Him, even to the point of blashpheming the Holy Spirit when they have reached the point of utter darkness of understanding.

In John 9:41, Jesus said, "*If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin*," that is, of rejecting Christ, because a physically blind man cannot see the incarnated Christ, nor His miracles. Then He said, "*but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains*," meaning, since you claim you know the Messiah, and yet you don't recognize Him with your eyes and you reject Him, the guilt is on you.

In John 15:22 Jesus uses similar language,

"*If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin* (of rejecting Christ); *but now *(that Christ did come and speak to them) *they have no excuse for their sin* (of rejecting Christ)."

Now for James 4:17.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 25, 2014)

Now I also understand James 4:17. It makes so much sense when you read the whole chapter straight through and think you are witnessing it on the spot. Paul was exhorting these brethren for judging each other. To be more precise, they were so busy judging each other's sins of _commission_ that they were totally ignorant of their own sins of _omission_! This is why Paul concludes,

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not (sin of _omission_), to him it is sin."


*Edit: I'll take all that back.*

Need to do more reading to wrap my mind around Ruben's interpretation above.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 25, 2014)

It seems that Paul is not trying to make a distinction between sin of commission and omission because

1) it makes no sense as a conclusion of what was said immediately before,

2) a sin of commission IS a sin of omission; if you don't do what you ought to do, you do what you ought not to do. That's inevitable.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 25, 2014)

Ruben, after hours of studying I'm convinced your interpretation of James 4:17 is correct. This, however, made me realize I have had a false view of the Word of God; of its proper hermeneutics and its time-to-time literally incorrect or lacking form in which we are to receive it.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 25, 2014)

Samuel, with regard to John 9 it does seem crucial to recognize that Christ speaks wittily, with a paranomasia.

With regard to James, I'm glad my thoughts commended themselves to you, but I'm curious as to what changed with regard to your view of God's word.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 26, 2014)

py3ak said:


> I'm curious as to what changed with regard to your view of God's word.



Ruben, I understand ironic talk, and that there are terms in the Bible that have a variety of meanings depending on the context (e.g., "world"). However, in the instance of James 4:17, it seems like the author, James, had not written precisely what was said by Paul. Or was it the tone of Paul's voice that made "sin" sound like "a great sin" to the crowds?


----------



## py3ak (Jan 26, 2014)

"Said by Paul" where? I'm not coming up with anything in Paul's letters or speeches in Acts that seems discordant with James 4:17.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 26, 2014)

py3ak said:


> I'd start with Psalm 19:12.



When I began going to the OPC congregation I am now a member of the pastor, praying at the pulpit on Sunday morning, included, "Forgive us for those sins we are aware of, and those we are not aware of." I had never thought of that possibility and commented on it to him after the service. He said, "That is from Psalm 19."

Reading James 4:17 brings to my mind

Matthew 26:40-41

40 And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, “So, could you not watch with me one hour? 41 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

and John 2:24-25

24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 26, 2014)

py3ak said:


> "Said by Paul" where? I'm not coming up with anything in Paul's letters or speeches in Acts that seems discordant with James 4:17.



I'm sorry, I confused James with Paul. I'll correct the sentence,

"However, in the instance of James 4:17, it seems like James had not written precisely what he had said. Or was it the tone of his voice that made "sin" sound like "a great sin" to the crowds?"

Actually, was this a mere letter or was James on the spot when he said the words of James 4:17? If it was a mere letter, then it makes it even more suspicious, because nothing is implied of the _nature_ of this sin that is against such knowledge -- just that it _is_ sin.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 26, 2014)

The Epistle of James is certainly a letter. No doubt James could have written down things he said previously, but we have no access to that. What we do know is that this is the final form into which God's inspiration placed this content.

But I am not sure what is suspicious about any part of it.


----------

