Mistakes

[No Other Name]

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.

If it helps your blood pressure any, for my part, you were clear enough long ago about heaven - and I am unsure I think it necessarily follows but wouldn't be surprised if it turns out you are right.

Rev. Winzer seems to think lack of dexterity is some kind of order of sin per his quotes, so I am waiting on his input. In the meantime, I would love your take on how erroneous doctrinal belief is always sinful no matter if it is contained outside the defining parameters of saving faith.

 

[Ploutos]

If it helps your blood pressure any, for my part, you were clear enough long ago about heaven - and I am unsure I think it necessarily follows but wouldn't be surprised if it turns out you are right.

It's possible my long post was unnecessary; but I went ahead anyway, on the off-chance that talking in a less combative frame of mind might be more helpful.

Rev. Winzer seems to think lack of dexterity is some kind of order of sin per his quotes, so I am waiting on his input.

I'll let him speak for himself, but to me that sounds like an effect of the fall, insofar as lack of dexterity implies imperfection and shortcoming. Not sin, but not something that would exist in our glorified state.

In the meantime, I would love your take on how erroneous doctrinal belief is always sinful no matter if it is contained outside the defining parameters of saving faith.

Why wouldn't it be sinful? Don't we all have sins that we'll carry to our grave unawares, only to realize at judgment day that we were wrong? It's God's grace that saves us, not our achievements in a particular area. We will all come to conclusions that are wrong in this life.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

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?

Just want to add some clarity from my pastor to the Christological aspect of this discussion.

Jesus was incapable of holding any false belief, even something as trivial as Teth coming after Zayin and not Heth, not because He is morally impeccable, but because He is a Divine Person. He who IS truth cannot hold any falsehood and so He could not make many of these "mistakes." However, this must be separated from His moral perfection. The "mistakes" Jesus could not make are not necessarily a good guideline for what human mistakes are sinful because there are reasons Jesus couldn't get the Hebrew alphabet wrong that don't apply to us (such as being God).

 

[No Other Name]

Why wouldn't it be sinful? Don't we all have sins that we'll carry to our grave unawares, only to realize at judgment day that we were wrong? It's God's grace that saves us, not our achievements in a particular area. We will all come to conclusions that are wrong in this life.

Why? answered already: post # 59. We are still working on whether "wrong" is sinful or not in every and all cases. Category 1 I argue is not sin. Categories 2 and 3 are sins. And a secondary / tertiary issue in doctrine where saving faith abounds in true churches I argue is not sin by definition of both sin and faith that saves from God's wrath.

 

[Pomopu]

I've come to the position that carving out a category of: "human beings will not always produce the results they intend to produce, even in heaven" is incredibly freeing, emphasizes our creatureliness, and exalts God's providence over all things. I also thinks its a fairly unobjectionable claim.

 

[Ploutos]

Why? answered already: post # 59. We are still working on whether "wrong" is sinful or not in every and all cases. Category 1 I argue is not sin. Categories 2 and 3 are sins. And a secondary / tertiary issue in doctrine where saving faith abounds in true churches I argue is not sin by definition of both sin and faith that saves from God's wrath.

I guess, speaking for myself, if I get to heaven and find out that the credobaptists were right all along, I would consider that a sin on my part that would need to be washed away by the cleansing blood of Jesus. Or if I find out that postmillennialism was right all along, I would have failed in this lifetime to address and repent of the sin of being amillennial. I would have believed something about God or God's law or God's will that was not true. That would be wrong and I imagine that it would be sinful. God is not honored by people believing the wrong thing about him.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

if I get to heaven and find out that the credobaptists were right all along, I would consider that a sin on my part

Why wait?

 

[No Other Name]

I guess, speaking for myself, if I get to heaven and find out that the credobaptists were right all along, I would consider that a sin on my part that would need to be washed away by the cleansing blood of Jesus. Or if I find out that postmillennialism was right all along, I would have failed in this lifetime to address and repent of the sin of being amillennial. I would have believed something about God or God's law or God's will that was not true. That would be wrong and I imagine that it would be sinful. God is not honored by people believing the wrong thing about him.

Thank you. I do not agree, but I am closing down now and will take time later to lay out a case why I think this is not fully accounting what God is doing in our lives.

 

[MW]

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?

I welcome honest and open interaction also, but that does not mean justifying errors. If a discussion reveals someone was thinking with a false assumption the discussion has served a good purpose. Now the person can correct themselves. But it would make the discussion fruitless if, at the end of it, everyone went on thinking the same way and holding to errors that had been exposed by the discussion.

As for your other question, if someone is mistaken on an issue, that is an error, and error stems from sin. I wouldn't say it is "a sin," in the sense that it needs to be pointed out as "a sin." As I have said throughout this discussion, we all make mistakes. There is grace and latitude given to each of us. But "grace" presupposes demerit. So by saying we are extending grace to each other we are recognising that we all suffer from the same demerit.

On a reformed board that holds to total depravity I wouldn't have thought any of this would sound strange or new, but there you have it; that is the benefit of honest and open discussion.

@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?

We extend grace and hope to receive it in return. Making this about individuals committing particular "sins" is not going to help anything. It will only turn a good objective discussion into something personal and subjective, which will be no good for anyone.

 

[MW]

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.

Well put! Jesus turns attention away from any particular sin of the blind man or his parents. Nevertheless, he would not have been blind in a perfect world. His blindness reflects the fallen world and his healing brought glory to God.

 

[Ploutos]

On a reformed board that holds to total depravity I wouldn't have thought any of this would sound strange or new, but there you have it; that is the benefit of honest and open discussion.

We extend grace and hope to receive it in return. Making this about individuals committing particular "sins" is not going to help anything. It will only turn a good objective discussion into something personal and subjective, which will be no good for anyone.

Yes, yes, and yes. Thank you for putting it so eloquently. Isn't there a term for the logical fallacy being committed in this thread? The law of the excluded middle or something - it's not a question of either being perfect or being in sin. You don't have to commit a particular sin to manifest evidence of the fallenness and sinfulness of the world around us.

 

[MW]

Yes, yes, and yes. Thank you for putting it so eloquently. Isn't there a term for the logical fallacy being committed in this thread? The law of the excluded middle or something - it's not a question of either being perfect or being in sin. You don't have to commit a particular sin to manifest evidence of the fallenness and sinfulness of the world around us.

I'm a bit rusty when it comes to formal logic; as I get older I rely more on common sense.

 

[No Other Name]

As for your other question, if someone is mistaken on an issue, that is an error, and error stems from sin. I wouldn't say it is "a sin," in the sense that it needs to be pointed out as "a sin." As I have said throughout this discussion, we all make mistakes. There is grace and latitude given to each of us. But "grace" presupposes demerit. So by saying we are extending grace to each other we are recognising that we all suffer from the same demerit.

Thank you for responding. I think this was helpful in understanding you. ^ This right here is where I was going for any mistake be it in miscalculation or mistake in doctrine of non-saving nature that genuinely seeks to engender full and solely-Biblical discipleship in self and all others.

On a reformed board that holds to total depravity I wouldn't have thought any of this would sound strange or new

Oops, see, we all go there, don't we? In your own reply up top, you had to delineate error stemming from sin and not equating the two (which I agree). I would think in complex discussions, more grace could be given to not dismiss the ones who struggle as somehow momentarily forgetting a core tenet without direct evidence it occurred.

Making this about individuals committing particular "sins" is not going to help anything. It will only turn a good objective discussion into something personal and subjective, which will be no good for anyone.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Now hopefully, other people (not you, brother) can see my utter discomfort when this issue becomes making this about denominations committing particular "sins" (or "corruptions" if you will) as unhelpful, and turns a potentially good objective discussion about baptism or covenants into something personal and subjective, which is no good for anyone.
[automerge]1747311642[/automerge]

Isn't there a term for the logical fallacy being committed in this thread?

You'd have to be more specific. You cannot logically apply a fallacy to an entire thread. But you could do so to a single post or poster who commits said fallacy on multiple occasions.

On another note, your reply about if your beliefs about baptism, eschatology, etc. (post # 66) - if these were proven wrong in heaven, you would need the cleansing blood of Jesus is a very interesting post indeed.

I started to respond but realized I was only repeating the substance of my Post # 59, (only more devotionally) so I abandoned it. I think there is more going on here than just my post # 59 as well.

This is probably going to take some time.

 

[No Other Name]

it's not a question of either being perfect or being in sin.

Example as to why I need to take more time: as a follow-up question for you, if you were to point this observation at me, would you be aware that you are "preaching to the choir" as they say?

I would hope so.

Are you aware how that seems to be a disjunction to your own Post # 66? I will presume you either deny or you are aware that it may seem to contradict yet still does not?

 

[No Other Name]

But it would make the discussion fruitless if, at the end of it, everyone went on thinking the same way and holding to errors that had been exposed by the discussion.

Sorry, a bit pedantic I suppose, but if everyone went on thinking the same way it could be fruitful in revealing a need to adjust how one teaches. (This has never happened to my knowledge in our church and our area).

Now, it has happened that one or two went on thinking the same way and holding to errors that had been exposed and that was also not fruitless as you say.

But I know you already know and I suspect you would agree. I never even thought to include this part in my initial reply.

I only do so now to make those points for the sake of others, not your own esteemed self.

 

[Ploutos]

Example as to why I need to take more time: as a follow-up question for you, if you were to point this observation at me, would you be aware that you are "preaching to the choir" as they say?

I would hope so.

Are you aware how that seems to be a disjunction to your own Post # 66? I will presume you either deny or you are aware that it may seem to contradict yet still does not?

There's a category difference between a stubbed toe and a theological belief regarding the application of the covenant sign of baptism in obedience to what Scripture commands. The difference is amplified when one moves to the application of those beliefs.

 

[No Other Name]

There's a category difference between a stubbed toe and a theological belief regarding the application of the covenant sign of baptism in obedience to what Scripture commands. The difference is amplified when one moves to the application of those beliefs.

Do you suppose my Post # 59 does not adequately address the category difference?

 

[Ploutos]

Do you suppose my Post # 59 does not adequately address the category difference?

I did not see anything in that post that addresses the conceptual difference between an erroneous theological belief and an accident such as a stubbed toe.

 

[No Other Name]

I did not see anything in that post that addresses the conceptual difference between an erroneous theological belief and an accident such as a stubbed toe.

It was there, and I was about to type up and show my phrasing and how I meant to hold that difference across my analysis, but I stopped. I will just capitulate that I was unclear as to how and why they are different, but that that failure on my part does not really detract from the overall point my post made.

 

[Ploutos]

By the way, with reference to King Josiah, it's abundantly clear from the Scriptural narrative that ignorance of the law of God was no excuse for anybody, believer or not. Rather, it seems that when Josiah tore his clothes and uttered a corporate expression of guilt, he was including himself in that.

The larger point behind that, relative to this discussion, is that grace coexists with a great deal of sin in this life. I have no problem saying that Josiah was in sin for his ignorance of the Law and the ways in which he fell short of it even while he was seeking the Lord. Hezekiah's prayer at his Passover confirms this. Here were faithful Israelites seeking the Lord, and he had to pray for forgiveness for them. Even though their hearts were in the right place, they could still have been rightly subjected to God's wrath for not following the rituals God had prescribed for them.

Questions 56, 114, and 115 of the Heidelberg Catechism capture this well.

Q. What do you believe concerning “the forgiveness of sins”?
A. I believe that God, because of Christ’s atonement, will never hold against me any of my sins nor my sinful nature which I need to struggle against all my life. Rather, in His grace God grants me the righteousness of Christ to free me forever from judgment.

Q. But can those converted to God obey these commandments perfectly?
A. No. In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Nevertheless, with all seriousness of purpose, they do begin to live according to all, not only some, of God’s commandments.

Q. No one in this life can obey the Ten Commandments perfectly: why then does God want them preached so pointedly?
A. First, so that the longer we live the more we may come to know our sinfulness and the more eagerly look to Christ for forgiveness of sins and righteousness. Second, so that, while praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, we may never stop striving to be renewed more and more after God’s image, until after this life we reach our goal: perfection.

Even after salvation, we continue to live with a great deal of sin and brokenness in our life. That's why our faith not only needs an author but a perfector.

 

[No Other Name]

By the way, with reference to King Josiah, it's abundantly clear from the Scriptural narrative that ignorance of the law of God was no excuse for anybody, believer or not. Rather, it seems that when Josiah tore his clothes and uttered a corporate expression of guilt, he was including himself in that.

The larger point behind that, relative to this discussion, is that grace coexists with a great deal of sin in this life. I have no problem saying that Josiah was in sin for his ignorance of the Law and the ways in which he fell short of it even while he was seeking the Lord. Hezekiah's prayer at his Passover confirms this. Here were faithful Israelites seeking the Lord, and he had to pray for forgiveness for them. Even though their hearts were in the right place, they could still have been rightly subjected to God's wrath for not following the rituals God had prescribed for them.

Questions 56, 114, and 115 of the Heidelberg Catechism capture this well.

Q. What do you believe concerning “the forgiveness of sins”?
A. I believe that God, because of Christ’s atonement, will never hold against me any of my sins nor my sinful nature which I need to struggle against all my life. Rather, in His grace God grants me the righteousness of Christ to free me forever from judgment.

Q. But can those converted to God obey these commandments perfectly?
A. No. In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Nevertheless, with all seriousness of purpose, they do begin to live according to all, not only some, of God’s commandments.

Q. No one in this life can obey the Ten Commandments perfectly: why then does God want them preached so pointedly?
A. First, so that the longer we live the more we may come to know our sinfulness and the more eagerly look to Christ for forgiveness of sins and righteousness. Second, so that, while praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, we may never stop striving to be renewed more and more after God’s image, until after this life we reach our goal: perfection.

Even after salvation, we continue to live with a great deal of sin and brokenness in our life. That's why our faith not only needs an author but a perfector.

I literally said Josiah was in sin. I literally said ignorance is a sin in my Categories 2 and 3. I don't think you are understanding me.

Are you sure you read my post as closely as possible?

I will presume you did and it is my fault, so can you - instead of arguing - start asking me questions instead? Thanks

 

[No Other Name]

I was typing a re-casting that I thought would bring more understanding - even if not agreement. But I am - at this point - not even sure if I am being read with any benefit of a doubt right now or earnest attempt at being understood.

I will be back with a different argument that has come to mind but I find difficult to express right now. It will take some time.

Right now, the only thought that jumps to mind comes from Rev. Winzer:

if someone is mistaken on an issue, that is an error, and error stems from sin. I wouldn't say it is "a sin," in the sense that it needs to be pointed out as "a sin." As I have said throughout this discussion, we all make mistakes. There is grace and latitude given to each of us. But "grace" presupposes demerit. So by saying we are extending grace to each other we are recognising that we all suffer from the same demerit.

Amen. But wait, doesn't he disagree with my point? No, he clarifies and reminds me there is a demerit there, but even so agrees that it is not appropriate to call this type of erroneous belief a "sin". When Peter answered the Lord and said he would not rise and kill and eat, he was earnestly trying to obey the Lord coram Deo - we have little doubt. When God teaches Peter, that these have been made clean, Peter - NOT in a rebellious disposition, NOT in a mindset that eating kosher makes him better than those dirty Gentiles - obeys the Lord upon receiving the Word from the Lord.

Peter had an erroneous belief that the dietary laws are still required under the New Covenant. He had an error, it does stem from the sinful state we all exist in post-Fall pre-glory. There is nothing in the text to warrant a conclusion that he was in sin so that we now need to watch out for errors we do not know how to watch out for beyond what we already ordinarily do daily as believers in the first place.

Otherwise, if this belief is one that threatens saving faith (as even Peter's error could have lead there but did not), then it follows that extraordinary measures should be taken lest one fall into sin. But this is not so.

We are to ordinarily work out our salvation with fear and trembling in the everyday experience of our lives as believers, and if Peter was - as seems from direct reading - he was in the midst of working out his salvation with fear of the Lord by obeying the Lord when encountering the Word of the Lord, then it would be unhelpful at best to call him out for "sin" - dangerously hypocritical at worst.

Josiah was the counter-example to this. His erroneous belief was that all is generally well with his nation and the covenant Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But idolatry was happening, and when the book of the law was found and he rent his clothes, it makes sense. This type of ignorance is without excuse. It is not enough to worship Yahweh but Yahweh must be worshipped alone and in His prescribed way.

But not all types of ignorance are sin. Ignorance of God's moral law itself is sin.

We are all agreed that: .... Learning about the differences between the Tabernacle and the Temple having not known it before, this is not sin. Picking up a Puritan and learning of how God's law and temple fixtures and the gospel are connected in a way not known before, this is not sin.

We are all agreed that .... teaching on the Temple and brazenly thinking one knows it all, this is sin.

We should be all agreeed that .... teaching on the Temple and citing sources and that everything I know now is limited and subject to new insights on later readings in later years, this is not sin. If that were not true, every new truth learned would require an attending confession.

The differentiating factor lies in

1) the heart and reasoning and intent:

(yes, intent matters. No it is not all that matters. Josiah's heart may have been in the right place but it is not enough. Disobedience was factually happening. Yes, Pharisees could be tithing and sacrificing - even above what the law requires, but their intent is to show they are superior to the common man and naturally ascend to authority on that basis itself),

2) the nature of the belief itself connecting with the actions attending that belief with its direct ramifications to faith that saves from God's wrath.

It would be inappropriate for my church to say Presbyterians are mistaken on an issue, that is an error and that error must be sin. Purge our documents and everything we own. Why not? If Westminster sins, then we need freed from any "Westminster corruptions". God forbid.

 

[Ploutos]

Rev. Winzer, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position.

Brad, with all due respect, I do not think you are reading me or MW correctly. I don't think he said that being erroneous is not a sin in the technical sense of the word. I believe that what he was saying was that, from a pastoral perspective, it would not be helpful to go around criticizing people for being in sin over theological errors.

And I wholeheartedly agree with him on this. From a pastoral perspective, I am not going to go around telling all my Baptist friends that they are in sin for holding to Baptist friends or for withholding the covenant sign from their children.

But from a technical perspective, I do believe that erroneous theological beliefs are sinful and the application of them is also sinful. And I think it is entirely appropriate to have those kinds of discussions on a forum like this. And if I were having a theological discussion with a Baptist friend I would not be afraid to say that, provided it with the right setting and there is the proper understanding of mutual love and respect.

But there are degrees of sin. There is a difference between being in sin by holding the wrong view of eschatology and being in sin by committing adultery or by physically abusing one's children. The technical fact that both of these are sin should not obscure the vast difference in the degree of the sin and in the proper pastoral response. Being a Presbyterian doesn't mean I think all copies of the London Baptist Confession, or all the writings of John MacArthur and John Piper, should be removed to my church library and burned in a bonfire at a church picnic. It just means that, on that particular issue, I considered Baptists to be wrong. And the concept of being wrong implies imperfection, fallenness, and sin. It also implies the need for grace. Thankfully, there's plenty of grace from on high to go around, and as a follower of Christ I try to share in extending that grace. I don't think that extending grace means I pretend there's no wrong, but rather I think it means that I show love in the presence of differences and disagreements as I would hope others would do for me.

 

[No Other Name]

Rev. Winzer, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position.

Brad, with all due respect, I do not think you are reading me or MW correctly. I don't think he said that being erroneous is not a sin in the technical sense of the word. I believe that what he was saying was that, from a pastoral perspective, it would not be helpful to go around criticizing people for being in sin over theological errors.

And I wholeheartedly agree with him on this. From a pastoral perspective, I am not going to go around telling all my Baptist friends that they are in sin for holding to Baptist friends or for withholding the covenant sign from their children.

But from a technical perspective, I do believe that erroneous theological beliefs are sinful and the application of them is also sinful. And I think it is entirely appropriate to have those kinds of discussions on a forum like this. And if I were having a theological discussion with a Baptist friend I would not be afraid to say that, provided it with the right setting and there is the proper understanding of mutual love and respect.

But there are degrees of sin. There is a difference between being in sin by holding the wrong view of eschatology and being in sin by committing adultery or by physically abusing one's children. The technical fact that both of these are sin should not obscure the vast difference in the degree of the sin and in the proper pastoral response. Being a Presbyterian doesn't mean I think all copies of the London Baptist Confession, or all the writings of John MacArthur and John Piper, should be removed to my church library and burned in a bonfire at a church picnic. It just means that, on that particular issue, I considered Baptists to be wrong. And the concept of being wrong implies imperfection, fallenness, and sin. It also implies the need for grace. Thankfully, there's plenty of grace from on high to go around, and as a follower of Christ I try to share in extending that grace. I don't think that extending grace means I pretend there's no wrong, but rather I think it means that I show love in the presence of differences and disagreements as I would hope others would do for me.

So, you would categorize whichever of our respective covenant theologies that is in error as a sinful belief that does not undermine saving faith? (Generally speaking, granting charity from one to the other that no one believes their CT position out of spite, anger, malice, etc)

 

[Ploutos]

So, you would categorize whichever of our respective covenant theologies that is in error as a sinful belief that does not undermine saving faith? (Generally speaking, granting charity from one to the other that no one believes their CT position out of spite, anger, malice, etc)

In heaven, our theology and application will be without error, finite but perfect. Our knowledge and our ability to apply it and live it out will be perfectly conformed to God's knowledge and will in every way.

What would you call something that falls short of that? I believe both of our catechisms define sin as "any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God". Not just volitional sins or even sins of omission but any aspect of us that is not fully in conformity with God.

As for undermining saving faith, it's been my personal experience that I undermine my salvation in thought, word, and deed constantly every day. It is the grace of God and the sustaining power of his Holy Spirit that repairs the damage I do every hour of every day. If your experience is different, I'd love to hear more.

 

[SolaScriptura]

If I opened this thread and upon reading the OP and a few comments I realize that doing so was a mistake…

 

[No Other Name]

I believe both of our catechisms define sin as "any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God". Not just volitional sins or even sins of omission but any aspect of us that is not fully in conformity with God.

Amen. I do not deny. Can you specify what law of God would be broken by using Scripture without experiencing a recursive loop due to the different interpretations of verses we all have gone over and over again?

As for undermining saving faith, it's been my personal experience that I undermine my salvation in thought, word, and deed constantly every day.

Yeah, we all know this. Surely, you do not mean that your covenant theology is something to be confessed everyday, yes? (I don't think that is what you mean).

Do you suppose that if your covenant theology is not true that God's grace covers it so that no damage is experienced due to the Spirit's repair? And if that reverse scenario occurs where a 1689'er would be in error, then it would likewise be true that God's grace covers it so that no damage is experienced due to the Spirit's repair?

And I mean the Spirit repairs to the point there is no damage so that there is no obvious lack of conformity to the law of God that can be pointed to by one for the other. Nor are there any negative effects to the shared list of distinctives we both have on faith that saves from the wrath of God (on sin):

• 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.

(By the way I went ahead and liked your post so that - after all this disagreement - you don't feel like this is anything more than just what this is).

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position.

There is nothing to correct there. Bringing this back to the "pastoral" perspective is key. That is one of overflowing grace. No man shepherds another man who has not been appointed by a gracious dispensation. In the way we act we are fundamentally informed by the covenant of grace, including the very important point that God accepts sincere obedience on the basis of the merits of Christ, pities our weak condition, remembers we are dust, spares us as a father spares his son that serves him, and so on and so forth. I could go on. At no point does any of this suppose that sin becomes something other than what it is in God's sight. But where sin abounds grace did much more abound! Hence we should all say, I am what I am by the grace of God.

 

[Ploutos]

Amen. I do not deny. Can you specify what law of God would be broken by using Scripture without experiencing a recursive loop due to the different interpretations of verses we all have gone over and over again?

I must be rather dense here, because I'm not sure I am clear on what you are asking here. Could you clarify this for me?

Yeah, we all know this. Surely, you do not mean that your covenant theology is something to be confessed everyday, yes? (I don't think that is what you mean).

At this time I don't consider my covenant theology to be in error, so I don't see a need to confess it. I could certainly use to learn more on the topic, for sure, and maybe along the way I might come to realize I was wrong about some things I previously held.

I do pray that God will help me to grow in my doctrinal understanding, and that he'll help me to see areas where I'm wrong, make the appropriate amends, and change accordingly. I acknowledge that there are probably errors that I don't see, and I pray (though not nearly often enough) that he'll lead me to the point of being able to see those things.

Do you suppose that if your covenant theology is not true that God's grace covers it so that no damage is experienced due to the Spirit's repair? And if that reverse scenario occurs where a 1689'er would be in error, then it would likewise be true that God's grace covers it so that no damage is experienced due to the Spirit's repair?

God does not always spare us from the temporal consequences of sin in this lifetime. But his justifying grace wipes away any impact the sin might have on my standing before him, and I trust that his sanctifying grace will continue to lessen the hold that sin has over my life, and that it will repair the harm done by past bad habits. It might be partial - a small beginning, to again reference the Heidelberg Catechism questions I posted above.

And I mean the Spirit repairs to the point there is no damage so that there is no obvious lack of conformity to the law of God that can be pointed to by one for the other.

I'm not sure I follow this, but per the above questions in the Heidelberg Catechism, I expect that any progress in this life will be a beginning toward perfect obedience, and knowing myself and my sin, I will believe that there will be ample lack of conformity to last a lifetime. If God should grant otherwise, I welcome it; but Scripture and our confessional standards make it pretty clear that perfectionism is not a viable expectation, so it would be foolish (sinful, even) to count on it.

Nor are there any negative effects to the shared list of distinctives we both have on faith that saves from the wrath of God (on sin):

• 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.

When I sin, I am falling short in believing in the truth of God's Word, in God's authority, in the excellency of Christ, in yielding obedience to God's commands, in embracing his promises and trembling at his threats. Even my small sins are enough to cast me into hell. By God's grace, I am preserved to get up and fight sin another day. I don't think you disagree with that though, so maybe I just don't understand what you're getting at in the above section.

(By the way I went ahead and liked your post so that - after all this disagreement - you don't feel like this is anything more than just what this is).

Sometimes I'm not sure I know what this is, but maybe we can agree to disagree on whether we agree or disagree.

 

[No Other Name]

There is nothing to correct there. Bringing this back to the "pastoral" perspective is key. That is one of overflowing grace. No man shepherds another man who has not been appointed by a gracious dispensation. In the way we act we are fundamentally informed by the covenant of grace, including the very important point that God accepts sincere obedience on the basis of the merits of Christ, pities our weak condition, remembers we are dust, spares us as a father spares his son that serves him, and so on and so forth. I could go on. At no point does any of this suppose that sin becomes something other than what it is in God's sight. But where sin abounds grace did much more abound! Hence we should all say, I am what I am by the grace of God.

I of course love the pastoral perspective and agree to the spirit of what you mean but not its inherent implication.

The issue for me is one of technical application (and I would never talk like this when I am around my family, both household and church).

You argue that a wrong confessional theology (either WCF or 1689) - whichever is wrong is technically sin but it would not be prudent to call it sin. I did not misunderstand. I simply clarified where I agree with a tweak the same way you did with me beforehand.

Speaking technically, I do not understand a "sin" that cannot be shown to be out of conformity with the law of God.

Understanding the position of WCF theology as I do, I cannot say with Benjamin Keach (a real bulldog who growled frequently about the "idolatry of infant baptism" that Presbyterians held onto for they "could not sever ties with Rome completely"), I deny this.

This is instructive to me:

Keach had to reach in order to find a "sin" to lay a charge on our paedobaptist brothers. He had to insert a motive or intent in order to "prove idolatry" and I cannot for the life of me see any obvious or objectively applicable breaking of any of God's law - either on the part of a faithful and genuinely saved Presbyterian church service or a faithful and genuinely saved 1689 church service.

(No, this does not mean that they are both "true" because it is their sincere belief that makes both "true"; I am no postmodernist fool).

I considered Nadab and Abihu and their death in Lev. 10. This seems inapplicable to me since they committed worship against specific commandments (Lev. 10:1). (see Matthew Henry for specifics on how and why a faithful exegesis of God's revealed Word would show to any who have eyes to see that what they are about to do is sin). This does not apply to either of us as I understand.

Nor does Uzzah.

Nor does Josiah.

Nor does anyone defiling specific principles of worship where the law of God can be specified as to which is being broken by the sin (intentionally or not has no bearing we all affirm).

This is why I appealed to Peter as evidence for an erroneous belief with no indication anywhere that he is in sin from Scripture (Acts 10).

He (and we) are being instructed by God in the theology of the New Covenant as he is being called to expand his preaching to Gentiles - and one Gentile specifically. Now, if he rejected that revelation on the housetop then it could be shown how and why he lacks conformity with the law of God.

But Peter did not reject the instruction and the call. He obeyed.

So when you (or rather @Ploutos) appeal to the definition of sin, it falls flat.

For there can be no specific law of God given that can be pointed to - one for the other. I mean I can appeal to the verses and interpretations thereof that lead to my position and you can do likewise.

We can and we all actually have with each other.

The lack of a specific connection that is so obvious and undeniable that it leads to the recursive loop so that no one necessarily feels convicted when the Scriptural basis for their belief on how to worship is challenged by another fully Scriptural belief that leads to a different conclusion (EP vs. non-EP falls into this category too).

Here is my new question based on this:

Does one suppose that there is a book out there / or a book that is "not out there but yet to be written" that will lay out the Biblical case point-by-point so powerfully that either one of our respective Covenant Theologies will be so objectively vindicated as Biblically truthful that all of those genuinely saved will not be able to deny any longer the one true Biblical covenant theology based on the specifics of the eternal law of God revealed in his holy Word?

or

Does one suppose that obviously clinching book has already been written - the position already secured - and that is why their CT is true and the other is only growing in faith and holiness by God's grace covering the sin of their CT that one sees in the other? (This is certainly not me and I doubt it is anyone here).

Sometimes I imagine that if we lived in a different culture that valued collective agreement more than rugged individualism, we would have a great council - one to rival the historic ones - across nations and investigate how much a CT relies on necessarily derived truth from Scripture to experiment and test the hypothesis that there exists a document - not yet written - but whose seeds exist today - that proves how and why the other newly-discarded CT specifically breaks the law of God as revealed in His Word.

I am unsure that is possible (the document I mean. But I also happen to think the hypothetical "Great Council of CT" is a far-fetched possibility as well hahaha)