Mistakes

[Brian Kooshian]

Can anyone point me to any Bible passages or other resources that deal with mistakes? I’m not talking about things that are sinful, nor primarily about theological mistakes, but more the kind of mistakes one makes at work or in other activities of daily life. Has anyone written any kind of “theology of mistakes”?

 

[Dkshotwell]

The first thought that came to my mind was this is a question of providence if anything. I'm no help in that area, but I'm sure somebody on this board is. I'm interested myself.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

@Brian Kooshian

What do you mean by "mistakes?" Particularly when you say, "I'm not talking about things that are sinful." Many things that could be or are labelled "mistakes" may well involve some measure of sin, such as negligence or failure to submit to duly constituted authority. To be sure, it may be a lower level of sin if I forget something I should do, for instance, depending on what it is, but that doesn't mean that no sin is present.

You want a "theology of mistakes." What is it, exactly, that you're looking for? There is plenty of theologizing about how all things, which would include the greatest to the least occasion of sin and suffering (including "mistakes"), work together for good to those who are His. How would what you seek differ from that sort of thing? I am struggling to pinpoint your precise need and desire here.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Brownie]

Can anyone point me to any Bible passages or other resources that deal with mistakes? I’m not talking about things that are sinful, nor primarily about theological mistakes, but more the kind of mistakes one makes at work or in other activities of daily life. Has anyone written any kind of “theology of mistakes”?

Do you mean like a typo? I'm trying to think of a mistake Jesus could have made, but just saying that makes me feel uneasy. Perhaps that's the primary question: can you think of a mistake that Jesus could've made? If not, chances are there are no 'innocent mistakes'.

 

[erickinho1bra]

Do you mean like a typo? I'm trying to think of a mistake Jesus could have made, but just saying that makes me feel uneasy. Perhaps that's the primary question: can you think of a mistake that Jesus could've made? If not, chances are there are no 'innocent mistakes'.

Couldn’t it be possible for Jesus to forget someone’s name when he was a child? Jesus had to learn the Hebrew alphabet and how to go potty when He was younger. Wouldn’t it be possible for Him to have messed up with those things when he was younger?

 

[Brownie]

Couldn’t it be possible for Jesus to forget someone’s name when he was a child? Jesus had to learn the Hebrew alphabet and how to go potty when He was younger. Wouldn’t it be possible for Him to have messed up with those things when he was younger?

Maybe it's a matter of definition. I don't think forgetting is a mistake. But calling someone by a wrong name, is that a mistake or a false witness? That's an interesting question! Just like with learning the alphabet - if He said 'I believe ... to be the answer', it's probably not false witness, but the answer could be wrong.
I do think, however, that potty training is a different matter. He would've tried to obey His parents, but a physical inability is not a mistake.

 

[MW]

It's an interesting question and opens up the need for tighter definitions related to what we mean by sin. I would adopt a non-neutral position. If there are mistakes in God's creation they are the result of the fall. Hence they are formally sin as they "miss the mark" of God's perfect standard. We have come to live with these and accept them as a part of being gracious and understanding towards others. But if we thought deeper about it we would see that "grace" supposes ill-desert, and even what we call the most "harmless mistake" is still harmful in its own nature. It is only God's kind providence which renders it "harmless" to a degree. An inadvertent typo read the wrong way could have disastrous consequences. Perhaps one example is the study of the textual criticism of the New Testament. Who knows what people are going to do with our mistakes! Perhaps by being more conscious of this point we would try harder not to make them. OTOH, developing a theology of neutral, non-culpable mistakes might let us off the hook so that we take less care and end up making more mistakes.

 

[erickinho1bra]

It's an interesting question and opens up the need for tighter definitions related to what we mean by sin. I would adopt a non-neutral position. If there are mistakes in God's creation they are the result of the fall. Hence they are formally sin as they "miss the mark" of God's perfect standard. We have come to live with these and accept them as a part of being gracious and understanding towards others. But if we thought deeper about it we would see that "grace" supposes ill-desert, and even what we call the most "harmless mistake" is still harmful in its own nature. It is only God's kind providence which renders it "harmless" to a degree. An inadvertent typo read the wrong way could have disastrous consequences. Perhaps one example is the study of the textual criticism of the New Testament. Who knows what people are going to do with our mistakes! Perhaps by being more conscious of this point we would try harder not to make them. OTOH, developing a theology of neutral, non-culpable mistakes might let us off the hook so that we take less care and end up making more mistakes.

I feel like the non-neutral position doesn’t take intent into consideration. To intent to do good like drive an old lady to the hospital in the pouring rain but then fail to arrive because you couldn’t see well an end up getting into an accident doesn’t seem like a sin Christ would have to die for. There doesn’t seem to be any transgression of or want of conformity to God’s Law at all; just human weakness meeting a weather system impacted by the Fall.

 

[MW]

I feel like the non-neutral position doesn’t take intent into consideration. To intent to do good like drive an old lady to the hospital in the pouring rain but then fail to arrive because you couldn’t see well an end up getting into an accident doesn’t seem like a sin Christ would have to die for. There doesn’t seem to be any transgression of or want of conformity to God’s Law at all; just human weakness meeting a weather system impacted by the Fall.

That's out of our hands. It is not a sin or a mistake. Time and chance happen to all. Obedience belongs to us; consequences belong to God.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

@Brian Kooshian

I am interested, Brian, if you are willing, in hearing your answer to my question as to what you mean by "mistake" and a "theology of mistakes." How have you come to determine that what you label a "mistake" is not "sinful," presumably having no element of sin at all in its commission? Would it not be better to be open on that question rather than asserting right out of the gate that what you are interested in is something that's not sinful?

Peace,
Alan

 

[Jim]

Are we saying that the ability to do something and its accompanying intent is the difference between sin and a mistake (ex. typo, learning the alphabet, or potty)?

Or is it that ability and intent plays no part in the definition of "sin" and "mistake".

As fallen creatures we are prone to falling short, failure, sin whether we have the ability or the intent (or not). We are not perfect. We (I) make typos, forget stuff, and do things without thinking or understanding the consequences.

i think it is ok to call these sin - sins of omission and the like. This results in a more broad definition of sin.

But Christ redeems all of our imperfections and fallen nature to boot.

I think this falls under the category of ethics.

 

[TheInquirer]

It seems to me mistakes have to do with being finite beings who are clothed in weakness and imperfection. I would push back against trying to label things as sin if God does not.

For example, when one is tired or sick our brains do not function at normal capacity and we are prone to forgetting, misspeaking, or not being able to function in our normal capacity. We get old and our bodies start to not work the way we want them to.

If you are driving in a new area and accidentally bump a curb in a parking lot while turning that is constructed in a way you are not typically accustomed to, is that a sin or simply a non moral mistake? If you are tired and mix up the regular and decaf coffee, is that really a sin? If you are in a legitimate hurry and your watch catches on a doorframe and scratches is that an offense to God? If you are hiking on a trail and you stub your toe on a rock you didn’t see is that a sin? Are we really supposed to confess these things to the Lord and thank Jesus for dying for them? Are these things truly under the regulation of the moral law? Does God send people to hell for stubbing their toes?

 

[Jim]

Nice reply, thanks

 

[MW]

If you are driving in a new area and accidentally bump a curb in a parking lot while turning that is constructed in a way you are not typically accustomed to, is that a sin or simply a non moral mistake? If you are tired and mix up the regular and decaf coffee, is that really a sin? If you are in a legitimate hurry and your watch catches on a doorframe and scratches is that an offense to God? If you are hiking on a trail and you stub your toe on a rock you didn’t see is that a sin? Are we really supposed to confess these things to the Lord and thank Jesus for dying for them? Are these things truly under the regulation of the moral law? Does God send people to hell for stubbing their toes?

If your life depended on it how careful would you be? What about the life of another person? Turning across that curb might lead to you hitting someone. What then? Caffeine might have deadly effects for some people; it is not a mistake you can afford to make. It is someone else's property, so if you scratch it you are devaluing what belongs to them. If you are hiking on a trail and only stub your toe it is a good thing you didn't trip and fall off a cliff. God's overruling providence doesn't excuse us. Living in a fallen world is hard, but we should recognise we made it that way. There are no cosmic accidents.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

God is so gracious and kind to us. So much so that "the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, [even] their good works also are accepted in him...[God being pleased to accept our sincere efforts] although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections" (WCF 16.6).

As Calvin reflects, God is no longer our judge, because of the mediatorial work of Christ, but our Father. Those are the sort of things that we should think about when we think about the weaknesses that often afflict us when tired, sick, etc. Yes, we fall short, we make "mistakes" [unintentional errors or shortcomings of some sort, I'd define them], and God is gracious in bearing with us, in forgiving us, in renewing us.

Should these errors devastate us and discourage us? No, they should teach us how utterly weak and needy we are, far more than we ever realized, and how much we need God's grace from first to last. We should do all that we can in endeavoring to "learn from our mistakes" and seek not to repeat them, and when we do, be quick to confess them, know God's gracious love and forgiveness, and humbly proceed forward with our God.

If we magnify them and murmur about our weaknesses, we see our pride, as if we should not be afflicted with such in this vale of tears. OTOH, if we simply dismiss all such unintentional errors as nothing, we'll neither properly make this a part of the repentance that we should express for all in us that falls short (WLC 99.1), nor learn from them in endeavoring not to repeat them and to seek to do better. Yes, we will always fall short here, but to pretend as if there's no moral component whatsoever to that is not to walk in the truth in that regard.

Our gracious God bears with us in all this and even in our weakness makes perfect his strength (II Cor. 12: 9). So we need to accept that we will stumble in many ways and thus be humbled by and for it, looking ever to our great God, who sent Jesus to redeem us from it all, from the least sort of thing to the greatest: in the coming age we shall be free of all such imperfections and shall worship him without spot or blemish of any sort.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Ploutos]

Is it possible that a theology of mistakes would be related to a theology of original sin? It's my understanding that we're born under condemnation even apart from any actual sin on our part. The whole created order reflects this by showing that we are born surrounded by and contaminated by the effects of the fall. Even if there's not personal culpability for a mistake, the frequency with which they happen and the ease with which we make them is a sign that we (the whole created order, corporately and individually) are under wrath.

 

[Pomopu]

A mistake is no more a sin than getting a gray hair is a sin, in my mind?

The other day, it took me 4 tries and 15 minutes to scan a paper correctly and send to my email. This is, surely, not a moral transgression?

I am sprinting. I trip. This is not a sin, surely. In heaven, I think there is a place for what we know as "mistakes." That is, because we are finite, although we intend something, we are not infinite, so it isn't always the case what we intend occurs. We intend not to trip. But we trip. We intend not to ever produce a typo while writing, but we do. Not because we are sinners! Because we are finite. Adam might have tripped. I'm throwing thoughts on the chalkboard here, stating nothing dogmatically. But I'm thinking: Adam saw a lion, as it were. he said, "Bear." Then, "No wait, Lion." Was that a mistake? Yes. He realized there was a better name for the creature, "Lion, "not "Bear." Was it a sin? Surely not, right? It's because he is finite that Adam mislabeled the "Lion" as "Bear" before realizing "Lion" was better than "Bear."

So perhaps it isn't connected to a theology of original sin. Personally, I would place "mistake," in the sense of, we intend one thing and that thing is different in execution than what we had intended, as a result of finitude that existed in the garden and will exist in paradise. The one catch: no mistake in heaven will ever be a sinful mistake. So we need two different categories of mistake.

One mistake that is a mistake and connected to sin + finitude, another mistake is a mistake and connected to perfect moral nature but + finitude.

These are my pillow thoughts on the issue I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

 

[Ploutos]

A mistake is no more a sin than getting a gray hair is a sin, in my mind?

The other day, it took me 4 tries and 15 minutes to scan a paper correctly and send to my email. This is, surely, not a moral transgression?

I am sprinting. I trip. This is not a sin, surely. In heaven, I think there is a place for what we know as "mistakes." That is, because we are finite, although we intend something, we are not infinite, so it isn't always the case what we intend occurs. We intend not to trip. But we trip. We intend not to ever produce a typo while writing, but we do. Not because we are sinners! Because we are finite. Adam might have tripped. I'm throwing thoughts on the chalkboard here, stating nothing dogmatically. But I'm thinking: Adam saw a lion, as it were. he said, "Bear." Then, "No wait, Lion." Was that a mistake? Yes. He realized there was a better name for the creature, "Lion, "not "Bear." Was it a sin? Surely not, right? It's because he is finite that Adam mislabeled the "Lion" as "Bear" before realizing "Lion" was better than "Bear."

So perhaps it isn't connected to a theology of original sin. Personally, I would place "mistake," in the sense of, we intend one thing and that thing is different in execution than what we had intended, as a result of finitude that existed in the garden and will exist in paradise. The one catch: no mistake in heaven will ever be a sinful mistake. So we need two different categories of mistake.

One mistake that is a mistake and connected to sin + finitude, another mistake is a mistake and connected to perfect moral nature but + finitude.

These are my pillow thoughts on the issue I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

I don't think there can be mistakes in heaven. Finitude does not imply mistakes. In heaven, no one will trip and injure themselves. On Earth, people trip and injure themselves. I believe that is a mark of the fall, regardless of personal culpability. Tripping and injuring one's self is indication that we live in a fallen world.

 

[No Other Name]

You're probably right about tripping and injuries.

But I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of learning without mistakes (and even harder thinking about existing without learning at all).

The most progress I made in math and science classes was making mistakes in practice problems before quizzes and testing.

(I am not necessarily arguing for the position mistakes exist, just thinking along with all of you)

 

[Ploutos]

You're probably right about tripping and injuries.

But I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of learning without mistakes (and even harder thinking about existing without learning at all).

The most progress I made in math and science classes was making mistakes in practice problems before quizzes and testing.

(I am not necessarily arguing for the position mistakes exist, just thinking along with all of you)

That's because you have a hard time wrapping your head around the concept of creation freed from the effects of the fall (as would every human who has ever lived). We know that Jesus learned and grew without making mistakes, and we will too in glory.

It's just inherent to the definition of the word mistake. A mistake is not something that can exist in heaven, or anywhere outside of the current realm of reality in which everything is touched by the fall. I'm convinced that the very laws of physics and nature were different before the fall and will be different in glory.

 

[No Other Name]

We know that Jesus learned and grew without making mistakes, and we will too in glory.

I think this was said earlier too, and I may have missed the evidence for this.

 

[Pomopu]

For me, a mistake is this: I intend this one thing, but something else happens. Surely, that <---- definition of mistake occurs in heaven?

I think a theology of games and sports would imply the existence of mistakes in heaven. In the sense of, in a soccer game, it is not a sin to shoot the ball and not score. If I'm playing chess in heaven, and I make a mistake and get checkmated, this isn't a sin. So there are mistakes in heaven.

If you say there aren't mistakes in the sense of, I intend on thing (win the chess game and make no errors) but something else happened ( I loss the chess game because I'm a finite creature) then you have to say there can't be friendly competition or sport in heaven, which seems contrary to expectation given continuity with human culture/city building/garden tending and life in general.

 

[Ploutos]

For me, a mistake is this: I intend this one thing, but something else happens. Surely, that <---- definition of mistake occurs in heaven?

I think a theology of games and sports would imply the existence of mistakes in heaven. In the sense of, in a soccer game, it is not a sin to shoot the ball and not score. If I'm playing chess in heaven, and I make a mistake and get checkmated, this isn't a sin. So there are mistakes in heaven.

If you say there aren't mistakes in the sense of, I intend on thing (win the chess game and make no errors) but something else happened ( I loss the chess game because I'm a finite creature) then you have to say there can't be friendly competition or sport in heaven, which seems contrary to expectation given continuity with human culture/city building/garden tending and life in general.

I cannot for the life of me imagine such a mistake occurring in heaven. Granted, I can't wrap my mind around a world we're such mistakes don't occur; but the very notion of intending one thing and another thing happening implies defect such as would only be found in a fallen world.

If there are sports or games in heaven, I think they will take a form that we can't really envision now. If there is any notion of competition, it will take a form that we can't really envision now. But more importantly, I think talk of sports and competition in heaven is projecting that earthly mindset onto something that we really can't understand.

 

[No Other Name]

I'm convinced that the very laws of physics and nature were different before the fall and will be different in glory.

Also, in some sense I agree with this as far as a lack of entropy or decay, but I would not agree if you mean when you say "different" as to completely alien to our current laws. The teleological properties of the universe seem to reflect the eternal nature of their Creator. (eg, the fine-tuning aspects of the earth, solar system, axial tilt, etc. and all of their accompanying mathematical expressions like trigonometry, angular momentum et al)

 

[Pomopu]

I cannot for the life of me imagine such a mistake occurring in heaven. Granted, I can't wrap my mind around a world we're such mistakes don't occur; but the very notion of intending one thing and another thing happening implies defect such as would only be found in a fallen world.

If there are sports or games in heaven, I think they will take a form that we can't really envision now. If there is any notion of competition, it will take a form that we can't really envision now. But more importantly, I think talk of sports and competition in heaven is projecting that earthly mindset onto something that we really can't understand.

I'm super sympathetic, Ploutos, to your position. And part of me is really inclined to agree with you and chalk it up to the far superior reality that the New Heavens and Earth will be. So who knows?

 

[Ploutos]

Also, in some sense I agree with this as far as a lack of entropy or decay, but I would not agree if you mean when you say "different" as to completely alien to our current laws. The teleological properties of the universe seem to reflect the eternal nature of their Creator. (eg, the fine-tuning aspects of the earth, solar system, axial tilt, etc. and all of their accompanying mathematical expressions like trigonometry, angular momentum et al)

Sure, that's a fair point.

In a lot of threads about creationism, I've talked at great length about how anti-uniformitarian I am. And here I take that a step further. I'm not uniformitarian about life before the fall, and I'm not uniformitarian about life after the final judgment. We tend to extrapolate facts about this universe into our conception of heaven. I don't want to go farther than biblically warranted in positing just how different or incomprehensible heaven will be, but at the same time, we do see in scripture that heaven is described in somewhat vague, flowery, and hard to comprehend terms. A lot of the language is figurative. It seems that it is going to be so different that it really does defy description. Conversely, much of the evidence for intelligent design in this universe is evidence of intelligent design in the midst of fallenness. A good design marred at the most fundamental levels by sin. So while I agree with you that creation is oriented to reflect God's nature, I don't take for granted that just because something reflects God's nature means it will show up in heaven. On the other hand, I shouldn't take for granted that it won't show up either.

It's not a reach for me to imagine a heaven without sports, games, or competition. Even the thought of being reunited with loved ones holds less weight for me. But I can imagine and even think it likely that heaven might have some or all of these things. I just think it's going to look so different from anything we can conceive. If heaven has variety in terrain and topology, we are going to be able to walk alongside a cliff as much as we want without ever falling off. It just can't happen. I could posit a heaven where we are still finite, located at specific places in space and time, but being perfected, our thoughts and actions are so oriented towards and grounded in reality that the intent and the outcome will always match. No one would ever miscalculate. No one would ever push another person intentionally or accidentally. IF somehow someone fell, it would not be by mistake and it would not result in harm. In other words, it would not really be a fall anyway, but rather more of a leisurely jump.

 

[Pomopu]

"Our thoughts and actions are so oriented towards and grounded in reality that the intent and the outcome will always match."

Hmm. God is infinite, but God grounds reality. He transcends all categories. He is so beyond us, our knowledge is only archetypical. So our finitude persists in heaven. The infinite distance between God and creature does not disappear in heaven. And that sure fact, our perpetual finitude, is what, I think, makes me convinced that when we shoot a soccer ball in heaven, as it were, God will not coerce us to make sure we always hit it perfectly into the net. Because, the idea is that if our intentions always resulted in the outcome we desired, that would imply we've "figured out" God and God's creation, but that's just simply false and will always be false. Always another door to open. While we will have complete and perfect knowledge of God, we do not and will never have total knowledge of God.

I don't want a heaven where humans are more godlike than they need to be. I want a heaven where God is more Godlike than we think he is, and we maintain our finitude, our lack of omniscence, our lack of omnipotence, our lack of a spiritual body. I think it follows of necessity that non-omniscient beings can not make sure what they intend always is what is the outcome of the intention. If we were omnipotent and all knowing, nobody in heaven would trip. But we aren't that. I'm comfortable saying only God doesn't make mistakes, and that humans will never sin.

 

[TheInquirer]

If your life depended on it how careful would you be? What about the life of another person? Turning across that curb might lead to you hitting someone. What then? Caffeine might have deadly effects for some people; it is not a mistake you can afford to make. It is someone else's property, so if you scratch it you are devaluing what belongs to them. If you are hiking on a trail and only stub your toe it is a good thing you didn't trip and fall off a cliff. God's overruling providence doesn't excuse us. Living in a fallen world is hard, but we should recognise we made it that way. There are no cosmic accidents.

You are positing the most extreme results of my examples that are highly situation specific. Some situations require a greater degree of alertness and concentration than others. Dangerous activities I wouldn’t do when tired where others I would. It doesn’t seem like you are taking that into account.

Are you implying God requires perfect awareness, dexterity, and attention in every possible situation and if we don’t meet those requirements it is sin? How do you account for our natural limitations as humans?

Would God send one of your kids to hell for the “sin” of accidentally knocking over a water glass at the dinner table, especially if you put it down in a place where they didn’t notice? Do you teach your kids to confess such things as “sins”? Do you exhort your congregation to confess such things as “sins”?

 

[No Other Name]

Are you implying God requires perfect awareness, dexterity, and attention in every possible situation and if we don’t meet those requirements it is sin?

An excellent question. I have always read that sin is anything in opposition to the law of God - intentional or not does not matter.

This has been some thread here.

Many have implied as much (or even outright said) that holding wrong doctrinal views on secondary or tertiary issues that are only indirectly addressed in the Bible - is a sin and made zero allowance for the condition of ongoing indefinite timeframes of faithful and earnest reading into Scripture as a Berean.

If one thinks that a 6 year old puts 2 +2 = 5 as a result of losing track while counting fingers is a sin to the point of categorizing it with lying to a classmate that 2 +2 = 5 so that they can get it wrong and you can get top score in class, this just doesn't make sense to me.

There has to be a qualifying difference more than just a difference of degree. It seems to me totally different in kind.

Even if one classifies the former as a result of the fall, I can agree to that, ok But I still don't see that fact in and of itself qualifying the mistake as sin.

 

[Ploutos]

I'm comfortable saying only God doesn't make mistakes, and that humans will never sin.

What is your working definition of a mistake?