Mistakes

[Pomopu]

What is your working definition of a mistake?

I'm thinking in terms of the example of the spelling typo, like when writing on a keyboard. So like the word "accident." And I'm still building the plane while I'm flying it, but the original poster is probably benefiting by our armchair philosophy.

We intend to write "keyboard," but sometimes a mistake occurs. We instead write "kyeboard." We intended one thing. Another thing occurred which we did not intend. Or, the tripping example works too. We intend to walk and never misplace our feet. But it happens nonetheless. Personally, I don't see a problem admitting that as finite, albeit glorified creatures, mistakes of that sort will persist. However, unlike this side of heaven, those mistakes in heaven wil be providentially arranged by God for our delight, his glory, and even our benefit. So no mistake will result in pain, no mistake will result in morally transgressing the law, no mistake will detract from God's glory. There will be no "grievous" mistakes, no mistakes of danger or death or sin. Any mistake in heaven would fall, like a perfectly placed streak of gray on a blue canvas, to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts, perfecting the painted sky. So every action in heaven, which happens by our intention or by "accident," which is something that happens which we did not intend, like failing to see we would be checkmated the next move in chess, will ultimately redound back to God ultimate glory.

 

[Ploutos]

I'm thinking in terms of the example of the spelling typo, like when writing on a keyboard. So like the word "accident." And I'm still building the plane while I'm flying it, but the original poster is probably benefiting by our armchair philosophy.

We intend to write "keyboard," but sometimes a mistake occurs. We instead write "kyeboard." We intended one thing. Another thing occurred which we did not intend. Or, the tripping example works too. We intend to walk and never misplace our feet. But it happens nonetheless. Personally, I don't see a problem admitting that as finite, albeit glorified creatures, mistakes of that sort will persist. However, unlike this side of heaven, those mistakes in heaven wil be providentially arranged by God for our delight, his glory, and even our benefit. So no mistake will result in pain, no mistake will result in morally transgressing the law, no mistake will detract from God's glory. There will be no "grievous" mistakes, no mistakes of danger or death or sin. Any mistake in heaven would fall, like a perfectly placed streak of gray on a blue canvas, to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts, perfecting the painted sky. So every action in heaven, which happens by our intention or by "accident," which is something that happens which we did not intend, like failing to see we would be checkmated the next move in chess, will ultimately redound back to God ultimate glory.

Perfection does not equal infinitude and does not rule out limitations. But perfection does rule out mistakes, and I can't accept that there are mistakes in heaven. A mistake on God's part would obviously be inconceivable. But a mistake on that part would represent a flaw in the way God has designed us, and that is also inconceivable. You can be free of mistakes while still being finite.

 

[MW]

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?

Is that not what He made man to be? Anything less is our fault, not His. We need to recognise that. I only point this out, not to discourage people, but to see just how gracious God is to us in His daily Providence.

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”?

My children are conceived and born in sin. I know this is the reason, ultimately, why they are not perfect. The reason we do not bring these kinds of things to their attention as "sins" is only because we know our own weaknesses and love covers a multitude of sins.

 

[TheInquirer]

It seems to me that what you are advocating is a type of perfection that is only possible by a divine being. My pets, obviously non-moral beings, make mistakes all the time due to their natural limitations (watching a cat miss jump to a ledge is kind of funny....). The creature will obviously never attain the perfection of the Creator and such contrast only serves to glorify God who never makes mistakes.

What I would like to see is a greater distinction made between willful negligence and errors made simply because we are not God and have natural limitations endemic to our nature. I see nothing in Scripture where Adam would have fallen from grace simply for stubbing his toe.

 

[MW]

It seems to me that what you are advocating is a type of perfection that is only possible by a divine being. My pets, obviously non-moral beings, make mistakes all the time due to their natural limitations (watching a cat miss jump to a ledge is kind of funny....). The creature will obviously never attain the perfection of the Creator and such contrast only serves to glorify God who never makes mistakes.

What I would like to see is a greater distinction made between willful negligence and errors made simply because we are not God and have natural limitations endemic to our nature. I see nothing in Scripture where Adam would have fallen from grace simply for stubbing his toe.

It is not about being God. It is about recognising we are not the humans He made us to be. Sure, we have limitations as humans; but as sinners we do not live up to even our limited potential.

 

[Ploutos]

It seems to me that what you are advocating is a type of perfection that is only possible by a divine being. My pets, obviously non-moral beings, make mistakes all the time due to their natural limitations (watching a cat miss jump to a ledge is kind of funny....). The creature will obviously never attain the perfection of the Creator and such contrast only serves to glorify God who never makes mistakes.

What I would like to see is a greater distinction made between willful negligence and errors made simply because we are not God and have natural limitations endemic to our nature. I see nothing in Scripture where Adam would have fallen from grace simply for stubbing his toe.

That's the whole point. Adam would have never stubbed his toe. Prior to the fall, and after the final judgment, there are no stubbed toes, no mistakes, no pain, no errors, no suffering of any kind.

You forget that this perfection was achieved by a human - Jesus Christ. In so doing, he gives us a glimpse of what our heavenly life will be like. Jesus was perfect, yet fully human. As regards his human nature, he was finite, locally circumscribed in space and time. Pet he possessed exactly this type of perfection, not only as regards his divinity, but also as regards his humanity. This was even more apparent after the resurrection. So we will be in our glorified bodies for all eternity.

 

[TheInquirer]

So let's get right to the point so I can understand your position clearly - Are you saying stubbing your toe is sin that needs to be confessed?

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

That's the whole point. Adam would have never stubbed his toe. Prior to the fall, and after the final judgment, there are no stubbed toes, no mistakes, no pain, no errors, no suffering of any kind.

You forget that this perfection was achieved by a human - Jesus Christ. In so doing, he gives us a glimpse of what our heavenly life will be like. Jesus was perfect, yet fully human. As regards his human nature, he was finite, locally circumscribed in space and time. Pet he possessed exactly this type of perfection, not only as regards his divinity, but also as regards his humanity. This was even more apparent after the resurrection. So we will be in our glorified bodies for all eternity.

Does Christ's perfect human mean that he possessed every possible perfection at all times in his humanity?

I'm not sure it does. For one thing, the Scripture says "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature." But you can't increase in something you're already perfect at. So as far as his humanity was concerned, his wisdom, knowledge, etc had to have some measure.

For another thing, stubbing one's toe doesn't necessarily imply any defect in the stubber. It could just be dark out.

 

[Ploutos]

So let's get right to the point so I can understand your position clearly - Are you saying stubbing your toe is sin that needs to be confessed?

Why does it have to be either or? Physical illness is not sin that needs to be confessed, yet there will be no physical illness in heaven. Headaches are not sin but there will be no headaches in heaven. Please get over the reductionist straw manning of my viewpoints. One can believe that there will be no stubbed toes in heaven without believing that you need to do penance for stubbing one in this life.

 

[TheInquirer]

Please get over the reductionist straw manning of my viewpoints.

I'm not trying to do that, I am trying to understand what those in this thread with opposing views are actually claiming. I was trying to bring greater clarity to what we were actually disagreeing about.

 

[MW]

Does Christ's perfect human mean that he possessed every possible perfection at all times in his humanity?

I'm not sure it does. For one thing, the Scripture says "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature." But you can't increase in something you're already perfect at. So as far as his humanity was concerned, his wisdom, knowledge, etc had to have some measure.

For another thing, stubbing one's toe doesn't necessarily imply any defect in the stubber. It could just be dark out.

Wouldn't a perfect man know it is dark outside and take necessary precautions?

Yes, one grows in wisdom and skilfulness. But as we act with trust in God to keep us, so a perfect man trusts God to keep him perfectly. The promise, "Thy foot he'll not let slide" must meet with a perfect fulfilment in a perfect man.

 

[Ploutos]

I'm not trying to do that, I am trying to understand what those in this thread with opposing views are actually claiming. I was trying to bring greater clarity to what we were actually disagreeing about.

Telling me to get straight to the point by demanding repentance from those who stub their toes is not the kind of clarity this thread needs. I am with you in agreeing that would be an absurd perspective. What I am positing is that effects of the fall go far beyond beyond individual sins or even corporate sins that we commit in this lifetime. The entire creation groans awaiting its redemption. I think the very laws of physics and motion themselves will be different in heaven. Stars, if there are such things in the new heaven, will not be winding their way down to a heat death. Our immune systems will not be subject to steadily advancing senescence over time. We will not need tetanus shots to protect us from the consequences of stepping on a nail, because if we did step on a nail we would not get tetanus, because they will be no tetanus, and it's irrelevant anyway because I don't think anybody will be stepping on nails in glory. In fact, nobody will be dropping nails on the ground in heaven. The laws of physics that require us to use nails to hold things together might not even be the same in heaven, so it's an open question whether there will even be nails at all! The fact that we live in a world where people stub their toes is not a reflection of individual sin on the part of those people, but I think it is a reflection of sinfulness and the fall, a weight of corruption so great and so comprehensive that even the brilliant minds here on Puritan Board can't fathom life without it.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Wouldn't a perfect man know it is dark outside and take necessary precautions?

Yes, one grows in wisdom and skilfulness. But as we act with trust in God to keep us, so a perfect man trusts God to keep him perfectly. The promise, "Thy foot he'll not let slide" must meet with a perfect fulfilment in a perfect man.

I'm sure he would have taken every reasonable precaution, but such is life that things still happen in spite of our best precautions. Like when out of nowhere a snake came out of the fire and bit Paul (Acts 28:3).

 

[MW]

I'm sure he would have taken every reasonable precaution, but such is life that things still happen in spite of our best precautions. Like when out of nowhere a snake came out of the fire and bit Paul (Acts 28:3).

And did him no harm. Again, one must factor in divine protection; and perfect protection for a perfect man. Things don't just happen in this world. There are no cosmic accidents.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

And did him no harm. Again, one must factor in divine protection; and perfect protection for a perfect man. Things don't just happen in this world. There are no cosmic accidents.

Things don't "just happen" from a divine perspective, but they certainly do as far as our limited ability to foresee them is concerned.

Are you positing that Christ never suffered a bug bite, stubbed toe, sunburn, splatter from a hot pan, cat scratch, paper cut, scrape, bruise etc for his entire life, and was only allowed to experience those things at the hour of his death?

I suppose one is free to theorize such a thing, but I hardly see any basis for it in Scripture.

 

[Ploutos]

Things don't "just happen" from a divine perspective, but they certainly do as far as our limited ability to foresee them is concerned.

Are you positing that Christ never suffered a bug bite, stubbed toe, sunburn, splatter from a hot pan, cat scratch, paper cut, scrape, bruise etc for his entire life, and was only allowed to experience those things at the hour of his death?

I suppose one is free to theorize such a thing, but I hardly see any basis for it in Scripture.

Are we still talking about heaven here? There will be no venomous snakes coming out of fires to bite us in heaven.

 

[TheInquirer]

Telling me to get straight to the point by demanding repentance from those who stub their toes is not the kind of clarity this thread needs.

I think what would be most profitable for this thread is if I bow out. I think Charles is communicating the kinds of ideas I am trying to get across in a way better than I am able.

 

[MW]

Are you positing that Christ never suffered a bug bite, stubbed toe, sunburn, splatter from a hot pan, cat scratch, paper cut, scrape, bruise etc for his entire life, and was only allowed to experience those things at the hour of his death?

John 7:30, "Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come." Perfect protection! If something happened to Christ it could only be because God allowed it. What reason would God have to allow it?

 

[Ploutos]

I think what would be most profitable for this thread is if I bow out. I think Charles is communicating the kinds of ideas I am trying to get across in a way better than I am able.

Jim,

It's well-known and oft-repeated advice to me that one should read twice and edit before clicking "send" (or "post"), and yet I realized that I have not been doing so in this thread or in the other thread where I've interacted with you. So I've been rereading my posts after the fact, and with the benefit of even a few minutes of hindsight it seems to me that I'm being needlessly feisty, or downright combative, where it's not warranted.

Now some of you might call this a mere mistake and ask if God really expects us to perfectly choose every single word that comes out of our mouths; but I prefer to just call it sin. (Yes, I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here.) At any rate, to Jim and the others in this thread, please accept my apology for the stridency of my posts. I'll go talk with God about why I'm being so cranky before posting any further here or in the other thread.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Are we still talking about heaven here? There will be no venomous snakes coming out of fires to bite us in heaven.

I'm talking about whether it is possible for Adam before the fall, and Christ after it, to experience some degree of discomfort for one reason or another, yet without sin.

John 7:30, "Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come." Perfect protection! If something happened to Christ it could only be because God allowed it. What reason would God have to allow it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the hour in question here that of Christ's death, and God did not allow them to lay hands on him in order to kill him?
Does that actually imply that none of the sorts of discomfort or harm I mentioned above every happened to Christ?
Hutcheson says on this verse,

"Violence and persecution against the persons of faithful teachers, is an evidence of men that maliciously oppose truth, and the lot which is to be expected from such; for, they (whom Christ asserts to have sinned against their light, verse 8, 29) sought to take him, that they might kill him, or deliver him up to their Rulers. 3. It is the prerogative of God, that to him belong the issues from death, and that he can preserve his servants in the midst of their enemies, even when they are in the height of their rage; for, but no man laid bands on him."

 

[MW]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the hour in question here that of Christ's death, and God did not allow them to lay hands on him in order to kill him?
Does that actually imply that none of the sorts of discomfort or harm I mentioned above every happened to Christ?
Hutcheson says on this verse,

I don't see the relevance. His death is ultimate. But no man could lay a hand on Him before the set time, which includes all the sufferings preliminary to His death.

Calvin in loc.: Therefore they sought to seize him. They had no want of will to do him mischief; they even made the attempt, and they had strength to do it. Why, then, amidst so much ardor, are they benumbed, as if they had their hands and feet bound? The Evangelist replies, because Christ ’s hour was not yet come; by which he means that, against all their violence and furious attacks, Christ was guarded by the protection of God. And at the same time he meets the offense of the cross; for we have no reason to be alarmed when we learn that Christ was dragged to death, not through the caprice of men, but because he was destined for such a sacrifice by the decree of the Father. And hence we ought to infer a general doctrine; for though we live from day to day, still the time of every man’s death has been fixed by God. It is difficult to believe that, while we are subject to so many accidents, exposed to so many open and concealed attacks both from men and beasts, and liable to so many diseases, we are safe from all risk until God is pleased to call us away. But we ought to struggle against our own distrust; and we ought to attend first to the doctrine itself which is here taught, and next, to the object at which it aims, and the exhortation which is drawn from it, namely, that each of us, casting all his cares on God, (Ps. 55:22; 1 Pet. 5:7,) should follow his own calling, and not be led away from the performance of his duty by any fears. Yet let no man go beyond his own bounds; for confidence in the providence of God must not go farther than God himself commands.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I don't see the relevance. His death is ultimate. But no man could lay a hand on Him before the set time, which includes all the sufferings preliminary to His death.

Yes, that's the point I'm making. Christ could not suffer, before his time, in your words, "all the sufferings preliminary to His death."

So what about suffering which was not "preliminary to his death"? Mosquito bites, sunburns, stubbed toes, etc?

 

[MW]

Yes, that's the point I'm making. Christ could not suffer, before his time, in your words, "all the sufferings preliminary to His death."

So what about suffering which was not "preliminary to his death"? Mosquito bites, sunburns, stubbed toes, etc?

Where do you find that in Scripture? He suffered as the sin-bearer, He suffered the contradiction of sinners against Himself; He suffered temptations. There is nothing about mozzy bites or stubbed toes. In fact, Scripture teaches the opposite in Psalm 91:11-13, "For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Where do you find that in Scripture?

I'm asking where you find in Scripture the idea that no discomfort or inconvenience could have ever come upon Christ. I'm not asserting that Scripture explicitly says that happened, but rather, that it is a reasonable inference that something that happens to every human being every day also happened to Christ, unless the Scripture clearly teaches otherwise, or it would involve us in some unresolvable theological difficulty.

In fact, Scripture teaches the opposite in Psalm 91:11-13, "For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."

It is not clear to me that this passage teaches what you're asserting, for the following reasons:

1) If this Psalm were truly ruling out all manner of affliction, then they would also exclude the possibility of Christ's being crucified.

2) Although applied to Christ in particular by Satan in Mt. 4, this Psalm appears to be speaking of all believers. Compare v. 12 to Heb. 1:14. The language is similar to other Psalms like Ps. 3 that promise the Christian defense and protection. Compare also Matthew Poole's commentary, who takes the Psalm as referring to God's protection for believers in general. And yet no one would say that those Psalms are not fulfilled because Christians sometimes suffer persecution, affliction, bug bites, etc.

3) Because other, explicitly messianic Psalms that promise Christ deliverance in language that, taken literally, might seem to exclude any and all affliction, including his death, are interpreted by commentators as being fulfilled after his death, in his resurrection.

For example, Ps. 22 reads, "But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."

Now, the words "deliver my soul from the sword," taken literally, might appear to exclude the possibility of Christ being put to death, but commentators (see Piscator) take it as a reference to the deliverance of Christ via the resurrection, after his death.

 

[MW]

I'm asking where you find in Scripture the idea that no discomfort or inconvenience could have ever come upon Christ. I'm not asserting that Scripture explicitly says that happened, but rather, that it is a reasonable inference that something that happens to every human being every day also happened to Christ, unless the Scripture clearly teaches otherwise, or it would involve us in some unresolvable theological difficulty.

YET WITHOUT SIN. It is not a reasonable inference. The only reason we do not have perfect protection is because we are not perfect, and God uses these things to correct and refine us. As Calvin says on Ps. 91: "That we frequently stumble is owing to our own fault in departing from him who is our head and leader. And though God suffers us to stumble and fall in this manner that he may convince us how weak we are in ourselves, yet, inasmuch as he does not permit us to be crushed or altogether overwhelmed, it is virtually even then as if he put his hand under us and bore us up."

It is not clear to me that this passage teaches what you're asserting, for the following reasons:

1) If this Psalm were truly ruling out all manner of affliction, then they would also exclude the possibility of Christ's being crucified.

Christ crucified is by divine appointment. It pleased the Lord to bruise Him. There was a reason for it.

2) Although applied to Christ in particular by Satan in Mt. 4, this Psalm appears to be speaking of all believers. Compare v. 12 to Heb. 1:14. The language is similar to other Psalms like Ps. 3 that promise the Christian defense and protection. Compare also Matthew Poole's commentary, who takes the Psalm as referring to God's protection for believers in general. And yet no one would say that those Psalms are not fulfilled because Christians sometimes suffer persecution, affliction, bug bites, etc.

The reason Satan uses it is because of its Messianic promises. The promises apply to Christ; only the application Satan made of it is false.

3) Because other, explicitly messianic Psalms that promise Christ deliverance in language that, taken literally, might seem to exclude any and all affliction, including his death, are interpreted by commentators as being fulfilled after his death, in his resurrection.

Again, these promises are perfectly fulfilled in Him. It was only special dispensation that handed Him over to the power of darkness in what is called "their hour."

For example, Ps. 22 reads, "But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."

Now, the words "deliver my soul from the sword," taken literally, might appear to exclude the possibility of Christ being put to death, but commentators (see Piscator) take it as a reference to the deliverance of Christ via the resurrection, after his death.

Christ must needs suffer these things. It is what He voluntarily undertook to do. But there was a consciousness in Him that this "hour" was approaching and came as appointed.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

YET WITHOUT SIN. It is not a reasonable inference. The only reason we do not have perfect protection is because we are not perfect, and God uses these things to correct and refine us. As Calvin says on Ps. 91: "That we frequently stumble is owing to our own fault in departing from him who is our head and leader. And though God suffers us to stumble and fall in this manner that he may convince us how weak we are in ourselves, yet, inasmuch as he does not permit us to be crushed or altogether overwhelmed, it is virtually even then as if he put his hand under us and bore us up."

When Calvin says "that we stumble," is he speaking morally or physically? To me it appears he's speaking morally, of moral failings. And in that sense it's of course true that Christ never stumbled, and we do. But that wouldn't provide much insight into whether Christ could trip while walking at night.

The reason Satan uses it is because of its Messianic promises. The promises apply to Christ; only the application Satan made of it is false.

I suppose you're free to interpret it that way, but it's not how Poole takes it, and if it's far from a settled or self-evident interpretation then it doesn't do much to settle the debate.

Again, these promises are perfectly fulfilled in Him. It was only special dispensation that handed Him over to the power of darkness in what is called "their hour."

I agree that the promises of the Psalms are perfectly fulfilled in Christ. What I question, however, is whether the substance of what was promised includes never stubbing one's toe, getting a mosquito bite, etc. If "deliver my soul from the sword" can be fulfilled in the resurrection by God's raising Christ from the dead, and thus keeping any permanent harm from coming to him, and does not mean Christ wouldn't die, why can't "They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone" be fulfilled in the same way, in the resurrection, and not literally mean Christ would never strike his foot?

Christ must needs suffer these things. It is what He voluntarily undertook to do. But there was a consciousness in Him that this "hour" was approaching and came as appointed.

Agreed, but I don't see how this addresses my point.

 

[Pomopu]

Probably if we changed the term it would be more palatable. Instead of "mistake," if we just called it "unintended outcome," no would could disagree, since the connotation of mistake is there's something wrong/sinful about it. There are all sorts of unintended outcomes in our life, none of which our sinful. It is an unintended outcome to not secure the velcro to a diaper such that, later, a bit of a mess occurs. It was an unintended outcome the flowers we bought our wife happened to be, also, those her grandmother set out each Sunday, which brought extra joy to our wife. Call it an accident, a mistake, an unintended outcome, serendipity. I think we should keep the category. It points to human inability to control all situations at all times. And I like that. Humans aren't in perfect control of creation. That's intrinsically good. God created seasons, he made us rely on the world, to rely on him, the world changes, things happen, we plant a bit late or a bit early, so on and so forth. In heaven, we aren't mini-gods, we're not like Zeus, getting what we want all the time, so powerful and so wise. . .

So really, a category of "unintended outcome," a category of "mistake," emphasizes our humble dependence on God who at all times governs all things. It makes us really lean into a doctrine of providence, and our own impotency to make happen "out there" what we imagine in our brains, what we want with our hearts.

We stumble and the vase falls, the glass shatters---and we praise God for it. Every "accident/mistake/result unplanned for" is a chance to praise God, who makes no mistakes, who is perfect in knowledge and power. . . And I don't have the wisdom to comment on how these thoughts fit into Christ's life.

Maybe I'll write a book on it someday. Seems like its connected to some profound and helpful theology, touches at some fascinating issues.

 

[MW]

When Calvin says "that we stumble," is he speaking morally or physically? To me it appears he's speaking morally, of moral failings. And in that sense it's of course true that Christ never stumbled, and we do. But that wouldn't provide much insight into whether Christ could trip while walking at night.

Calvin on the promise: "The Psalmist adds, all your ways in the plural number, to convey to us more distinctly that wherever we go we may expect that the angels shall always extend their guardianship to us. The course of our life is subject to many windings and changes, and who can tell all the storms by which we are liable to be tossed? It was necessary, therefore, to know that the angels preside over all our particular actions and purposes, and thus to be assured of their safe-conduct in whatever quarter we might be called to move."

I suppose you're free to interpret it that way, but it's not how Poole takes it, and if it's far from a settled or self-evident interpretation then it doesn't do much to settle the debate.

Calvin again: "The Psalmist, in the passage now before us, speaks of members of the Church generally; and yet the devil did not wrest the words when, in his temptation in the wilderness, he applied them particularly to Christ." More fully on Matt. 4:6: "Though the promise, he will charge his angels concerning thee, (Ps. 91:11,) relates to all believers, yet it belongs peculiarly to Christ, who is the Head of the whole Church, possesses authority over angels, and commits to them the charge of us. Satan is not wrong in proving from this passage, that angels have been given to Christ, to wait on him, to guard him, and to bear him on their hands. But the fallacy lies in this, that he assigns a wandering and uncertain course to that guardianship of angels, which is only promised to the children of God, when they keep themselves within their bounds, and walk in their ways."

Note also the last sentence, the protection is promised when the person keeps himself within bounds, which of course Jesus did at all times; hence perfect protection.

I agree that the promises of the Psalms are perfectly fulfilled in Christ. What I question, however, is whether the substance of what was promised includes never stubbing one's toe, getting a mosquito bite, etc. If "deliver my soul from the sword" can be fulfilled in the resurrection by God's raising Christ from the dead, and thus keeping any permanent harm from coming to him, and does not mean Christ wouldn't die, why can't "They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone" be fulfilled in the same way, in the resurrection, and not literally mean Christ would never strike his foot?

Christ had power to lay down His life and to take it up again. He could have called on legions of angels to deliver Him from His enemies. He didn't. He voluntarily submitted at the time when He was called to lay down His life.

Agreed, but I don't see how this addresses my point.

I am pointing out there was a time and place for what you want to make general for all his life. Matt. 16:21 says, "From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day."

He didn't volunteer Himself before His time.

 

[No Other Name]

Fascinating discussion. When I teach adult Sunday school from 1689, I welcome all thoughts and I actually suggest that they are free to share fully what they think may be true without fear that they are wrong and incidentally saying something that would lead to error or be factually error. I laughingly tell them there is no wooden stake with twigs and branches out in the backyard waiting any such mistakes in doctrine for the fire lol

I am beginning to wonder if some here would find my style objectionable but how else can we learn the thoughts of our congregants in order to teach them?

@MW if brother Charles is wrong about this, is he in sin?

Wait, if it turns out when we get to eternity, Christ did indeed stub his toe by misjudging a step as he was growing in stature physically, are you right now in sin this very moment by not believing what was true?

This isn't about Christology really.

The points regarding soldiers being able to take Christ / not being able to are missing the point.

This is about sin. What it is in general and what it is in our everyday lives.

@TheInquirer said:

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?

In reply to this, we got from @MW :

Anything less is our fault, not His.

Now, Rev. Winzer does appeal to our not having worry due to God's grace, but that implies our fallen state is one of perpetual sin due to a lack of perfection.

The reason we do not bring these kinds of things to their attention as "sins" is only because we know our own weaknesses and love covers a multitude of sins.

And there it is. Making mistakes on Earth does in fact = sin. (Only somehow these need not be reminded to us for confession? Why not these but others?)

Where is any of this found please? This is utterly ridiculous.

I would repeat my analogy illustrating that mistakes can be sinful or not depending on the kind of error made and the context it is found. But since no one replied already, it seems superfluous to repeat myself.

Let's get to the real heart of the matter: sin.

Let's look at this confessionally and doctrinally:

We all know doctrinal error is a sin. I think we all agree, yes?

But I don't think we all agree on how doctrinal error works as sin, and how or why a "lack of perfection in doctrine" is not listed as a fruit of the flesh while errors such as seditions and heresies are in fact fruits of the flesh.

Saving faith is that "faith a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself, and also apprehends an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world, as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth consequently believed and also acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come; but the principle acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace." (1689 14.2)



Sin - by definition - is anything that leads to a breaking of the law of God in deed or thought. It is missing the mark of God's high standards as Turretin puts it and so does the definition of "hamartia" in Strong's. But in the context of God's morality.

There is nothing anywhere that says it includes mistakes as one is living in the attempt to to apprehend an excellency in obeying God and living according to His Word.

Q. Could not one intend to obey God and follow God and still be in fault against His law - still in sin?

A. I affirm; I do not deny this.

Case in point to the Q: Josiah wanted to obey the Lord and thought he was in full obedience to the law by commissioning repair work on the God's house the temple. Yet came the day when the book of the Law was found during the repairs. When it was read to him, he tore his robes, convicted of sin by wanting to obey the Law but NOT in fact obeying the Law.

Counter-case in point: Peter loved the Lord and wanted to obey his commission, yet he was not actively preaching to Gentiles until God gave him a vision and a call to do so. If you asked Peter before the vision if he should ever go to the Gentiles, would he deny? I think he would - based on his answer to the Lord in the vision regarding unclean animals.

Is he mistaken? Yes. Is he in sin? No. He is learning something new about the Lord. From the Lord. His saving faith that apprehends the excellency of God and obeying His Word in all things is not hindered by his error since he was never in a state of denying the excellency of God and disobeying his law either in thought nor even in deed.

Right now, I can only see three categories salient to this topic:

1) Mistakes neutral in morality and irrelevant to the apprehension of the law of God. (2+2=5 due to miscounting the fingers; misjudging a step and tripping - whether in the dark or not lol)

2) There is sin of willful ignorance (people are outside the will of God and continue to remain so with no desire to Scripturally evaluate their positions any longer; eg, devout Roman Catholics, Mormons, JW, Jews, et al)

and 3) sin of unwilling ignorance (Josiah, or anyone else who sincerely wants to obey God but doesn't have the full Bible - or access to how to discern the full truth of the Bible - and does not know what they are doing / what they are believing qualifies as sin yet - if they ever even will)

Since sin is any action or belief that subverts the law of God, how can we delineate between the two following cases:

Case A: the sin of believing that: "Christ imputed his righteousness to me so it IS lawful for ME to go to a strip club" vs.

Case B: the alleged sin of believing that: "1689 is closer to Biblical truth in its interpretation of Biblical covenant theology and practical baptismal implications than Westminster/Savoy"?

Surely there IS a distinction, yes? (A recently poignant question for me amidst calls for a return to "magisterial Presbyterianism" @pianoviolin and @Reformed Catholic that reminded me of a sad past exchange with @Ploutos as well)

I imagine everyone agrees that there is a distinction between those two beliefs.

However, not all seem to agree that while the former is sinful, the latter is not necessarily sinful per se.

My case confessionally:

Sin - an utterly rebellious disposition in defiance of the law and will of God whether knowingly or not; whether willingly or not. Any belief that fails the test of saving faith must be sin by definition.

A belief that defies the deity of Christ (Mormonism, JW) fails at being a faith that saves. I know we agree.

A belief that defies the immediate relation of Christ and His Spirit so that one "feels free" and "has no need to repent" of going clubbing, fornicating etc. FAILS at being a faith that saves. Again, I know we agree.

[DEF of saving faith: Chapter 14 in bullet-point format:

• A Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word
• For the authority of God himself
• And also apprehends an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world
• As it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes
• The excellency of Christ in his nature and offices
• And the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations
• And so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth consequently believed
• And also acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains
• Yielding obedience to the commands
• Trembling at the threatenings
• And embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come
• But the principle acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ
• Accepting
• Receiving
• And resting upon him alone for justification
• Sanctification
• And eternal life
• By virtue of the covenant of grace.]

Come to think of it, this way of looking at sin and its relation to belief that saves from God's wrath makes me rethink other threads in this light.

This idea of "mistake = sin" explains a lot of another discussion that left me baffled: the infamous debate of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I recall distinctly that no one in that discussion really believed in PV per se. Rather, the argument was that historic belief in PV by luminaries such as Calvin, Perkins et al was a "pious tradition". Untrue or untethered by direct evidence to Scripture as their case for PV may be, it was yet "pious".

But of course, how could so many luminaries make a mistake in interpretation that is akin unto sin? I now know at least understand why a few fought so hard against the idea that a Biblical case could be made for non-PV at all.

And these may not have known that - for me - the error of PV in Calvin et al doesn't qualify as a sinful belief in that it does not violate the conditions of his faith that saves per Chapter 14.

 

[Ploutos]

I've had a chance to take a couple of deep breaths, and with confirmation of my apologies for being so testy before, I will attempt to jump back in with (Lord help me!) a more sober-minded spirit.

I think one of the background issues being debated is the nature of perfection. Does perfection necessarily imply infinitude / eternality? Is volitional sin the ONLY thing that detracts from sin?

It seems to me, and if I'm wrong then please show me, that some people in this thread are saying that the absence of wilful disobedience to God's law is the only difference between our life now and our life on the other side of glory. I disagree with this. I believe that the effects of the fall extend much farther than our deliberate actions. No sin is occurring when an animal attacks another animal; yet, this is a result of the fall, and it is something that will not happen in heaven. I hope there's no debate on that, since Scripture explicitly states this.

I believe that the effects of the fall are woven into the very fabric of our universe. This means that there is an entirely separate category under discussion here: a category of things that reflect the fall without necessarily involving culpability on the part of one or more persons. When I say that a stubbed toe is a result of the fall, I am not saying that I think a sin was committed. What I am saying is that it is the manifestation of a flaw in the created order, a flaw that is there as a result of sin, and a flaw that will not be there in glory. Therefore, I can pose the following two questions and their answers with no hint of contradiction:

Have I sinned, and do I need to repent when I stub my toe? No.
Will I ever stub my toe in heaven? No.

It is not about the degree of perfection or forethought God will expect of us in heaven. It is about his ability to create a universe in which that degree of perfection exists naturally, such that everything works right all the time in every conceivable way. Assuming we have interactions with other people in heaven, there will never be the least hint of relational discord. There will never be the least blemish of any kind in the new heaven and the new earth. He will not be demanding of us that we will never stub our toes. Rather, he will have created a universe of such sublime perfection that such a thing will never happen.

Another important distinction that I think is being blurred here is the distinction of eras. The following contexts are under discussion:
1) Adam before the fall
2) Christ in his incarnate state
- what happens to him
- what he does
3) Believers in glory

I do not believe Adam would have ever stubbed his toe or fallen off a ledge before the fall. These things do not square with the reality of a perfect world.

Christ in his incarnate state is a special case, because this is the one circumstance in redemptive history where a sinless being lives in a world marked by the effects of the fall. I don't know whether Jesus would have ever gotten a mosquito bite, but it certainly seems possible. He was subject to the effects of the curse as part of his estate of humiliation; maybe that extends to this whole life, or maybe it is just restricted to the sufferings explicitly designated in Scripture. That, to me, doesn't matter so much. Reformed theology teaches that his entire life on earth was a life of suffering, and I am content to leave it at that. What matters to me is whether Christ made "mistakes" - tripped, stubbed his toe, got a wrong answer on a test, miscalculated on a carpentry project. I don't think he would have ever made a mistake in this regard.

I mean this not as a snide remark but rather as an expression of genuine non-comprehension on my part: I utterly fail to see how any notion of mistake, error, or accident could have any place in our talk about heaven. It goes back to that middle category between perfection and personal culpability. There will be no failed velcro or diaper containment issues in heaven. This does not mean that such issues now are sin for which one or more parties must be directly culpable. It's heaven - if there's velcro, it will be 100% effective 100% of the time. Where there is serendipity, it will only be of the positive variety. Indeed, the only things we will fail to anticipate will be the glories and perfections of the God we are contemplating for all eternity.

So, no stubbed toes in heaven, and no need to repent for them now. I hope this more clearly (and less heatedly) explains my thinking in this thread.