Mistakes

[MW]

(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).

Do we have a moral obligation to know and speak the truth? According to the Bible truth is a moral as well as an intellectual responsibility. We "obey" the truth and "do" the truth. If there is only one truth, that which does not accord with it is not true. That which is not true is by nature a moral failure.

There is a chapter in George Gillespie's Miscellany Questions called Unsound Heads Prove Unsound Hearts. You might find this helpful to see where people like Keach were coming from as well.

TrueCovenanter.com: George Gillespie's Miscellany Questions: Chapter 12: Unsound Heads Prove Unsound Hearts

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).

That is a good example. Peter was very quickly corrected, as we see from his immediate response to go to Cornelius' house. Moral conviction must have been at work to change his way of thinking so effectively. There was no need for Scripture to point it out to us as a "sin." It shows us that these kinds of "sins" are personal and it is the Spirit working in the person who will deal with them.

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?

God is sovereign and gracious! Somehow He continues to call His elect despite the mixed message the church of today is giving. But this does not remove our responsibility to have "one mind," to "speak the same things," and to "agree in the Lord." It is our moral failure that we are not as united as we could be. Thankfully God overrules our moral failings to accomplish His gracious purpose. Whether such a book will be written, I don't know. Obviously one has not been written to date, or, if it has, it hasn't yet had the effect of producing unity in the broader church.

 

[Frisian Gardener]

Since mistakes are sins, how shall we live? Yes, God is gracious and merciful, yet He also commands us to be perfect. Anytime on earth we try something new or challenging, or both, like learning a language, or forcing checkmate, or integrating a function, or shooting a three-pointer, or baking a cake, or arguing a legal precedent, or growing a garden, runs the nigh-inevitable risk of sinful error. A tender-hearted soul might think, "if anything I try today, I do not get completely perfect, it would be sin. Sins that caused Christ to die, and grieve the Holy Spirit. And since I know my mistakes would be sins, trying, and not achieving perfection, would be deliberate and high-handed sins. Wouldn't it be better for the safety of my own soul for me to stay in bed all day?" How can we counsel such a one, without falling into the opposite ditch of cheap grace?

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

A tender-hearted soul might think, "if anything I try today, I do not get completely perfect, it would be sin. Sins that caused Christ to die, and grieve the Holy Spirit. And since I know my mistakes would be sins, trying, and not achieving perfection, would be deliberate and high-handed sins. Wouldn't it be better for the safety of my own soul for me to stay in bed all day?" How can we counsel such a one, without falling into the opposite ditch of cheap grace?

1. A good work being mixed with sin does not make it sin. All we do is mixed with sin but God accepts our works through the blood and righteousness of Jesus.

2. Sloth and negligence are greater sins than missing a three-pointer or ruining a cake. And once again, learning something new is a good thing that is mixed with sin in a fallen world. Doing nothing all day every day is a bad thing in and of itself. We will be able, I think, to learn languages, sports, and mathematical truths in heaven (if such things are not present in heaven, Adam would have been able to do them in a state of innocence). In no sense will we be able to be lazy and paralyzed by fear in heaven.

So in one sense, it is "commit the lesser sin, not the greater," but I think it is better said: "Do what is good as such rather than what is bad as such, even when the former is tainted with sin."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There are so many aspects to this question that are directly (if not indirectly) related to the Proverbs.

One of the things my kids don't understand is that I rarely accept an excuse that something was a mistake. It's not that I fail to consider their frame, but very often the reason why something gets broken or misplaced is due to carelessness.

I might come from being a Marine, but it drives me absolutely crazy sometimes when I see parents not watching their kids and a mishap is waiting to happen. For example, I'm on pins and needles when kids are roasting marshmallows around the fire. Not only am I concerned that one of them is going to burn themselves, but many of the kids are to paying attention to the sharp points as they wheel around a bunch of other kids around them.

The Proverbs are set up so that a young person will gain wisdom and avoid preventable mishaps. The simple walks down an alley and is naively enticed into sin. It's not a "promise" in the Proverbs that you will succeed if you walk the way of wisdom, but it is certain that you will destroy yourself or others with "mistakes" that are preventable if you think them through.

The Law of God regarding manslaughter is interesting. If you were out chopping wood with a friend and the axe head came off and flew through the air and killed him, you might call it a mistake. I'd call it a mishap. If you were living in OT Israel you'd need to flee to a city of refuge and live there until the death of the High Priest because, at any moment, the avenger of blood would have the right to kill you for a "mistake". One imagines that there were no formal "regulations" on how axe heads needed to be secured but one can also imagine that someone checked their axe head carefully to make sure it was secure and they also made sure their friend was not in a location where they could be killed if the axe head came off.

This is exactly the reason why every Marine learns four basic principles when handling a weapon:
1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Do not point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire.
4. Keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire.

I have not been on a range for 20 years, and I still remember those safety principles.

It's the reason why Marines never call it a "mistake" when someone is struck by a round on a rifle or pistol range. It is a mishap, and one of the safety rules was not followed, and the range safety officer was not doing his job.

This is not an exhaustive accounting of the notion of "mistakes" but is one of the reasons I am never ambivalent about the term

 

[Ploutos]

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

We may have different ideas of what constitutes being "out of conformity with the law of God". For one thing, I think the burden of proof lies on us to show that we are in conformity, rather than the other way around.

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.

I don't think he had to reach. You asked for irrefutable Biblical proof that one or the other position would be a sinful one to hold. I don't know if you'll accept anything I put forward as irrefutable proof, but I'll give it my best shot.

WLC 104 - duties required in the first commandment:
1) Worshipping and glorying God by (among other things) being careful in all things to please him and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended.
1 Jn. 3:22 - "...because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight".
Psalm 119:136 - "Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law."

The paedobaptist believes that God desires us to administer the covenant sign of baptism to our children in keeping with an understanding of covenant theology that mandates the administration of this covenant sign solely on the basis of God's covenant promises to household units. The credobaptist believes otherwise. Do we believe that God is completely and totally indifferent here? I do not. I believe that one path is pleasing to God and the other is not. Were I to be convinced that I had been holding the wrong view all this time, I would be greatly sorrowful.

WLC 105 - sins forbidden in the first commandment:
1) The omission or neglect of anything due to him, required in this commandment:
Is. 43:23 - "Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt-offerings, neither hast thou honoured me with thy sacrifices..."
Gen. 17:14 (my prooftext, not in WLC) - "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

Viewing baptism as the NT successor to circumcision per Colossians 2, I believe that we are commanded to baptise our children. To not do so is a sin.

2) Ignorance, forgetfulness... false opinions of him
Hos. 4:6 - "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
Jer. 2:32 - "Yet my people have forgotten me days without number."

WLC 108 - duties required in the second commandment:
1) Receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances...
Deut. 32:46 - "...set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day..."
Matt. 28:20 - "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..."
1 Tim. 6:14 - "That thou keep this commandment without spot..."

2) The administration and receiving of the sacraments:
Matt. 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them..."
1 Cor. 11:23 - 30 - "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread..."

Again, do we believe that in giving these commands, the Lord was indifferent as to the how? Does he look with equal regard upon the two conclusions people reach regarding the administration of the covenant sign to the infants of believing parents? If he does not look with equal regard, then he must view one conclusion with less than pleasure. The passages I am quoting clearly indicate, to my eye, the high expectations the Lord sets regarding the degree of faithfulness to his whole will for our lives - expectations, of course, which are far beyond our ability and can only be met through our union with Christ.

WLC 109 - sins forbidden in the second commandment:
1) All superstitious devices... adding to it, or taking from it... whether invented... or received by tradition
Col. 2:21-22: "Touch not, taste not, handle not... which all are to perish with the using."

It seems Keach might well have viewed the practice of infant baptism in this light, and if Keach and the credobaptists are right, this would be a fair criticism to level at paedobaptists.

2) All neglecting, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

Likewise, this might apply to credobaptist attempts to prevent the administration of the covenant sign to infants.

WLC 113 - sins forbidden in the third commandment:
1) Misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any wise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways.

1 Tim. 1:4 - "Neither give heed to fables, and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith."

More than any other WLC question I have quoted so far, this question, and the Biblical proofs for it, seem to indicate that it is a sin to hold to incorrect doctrine. For this question I have refrained from giving the other prooftexts, both for brevity, but also because of reasons related to what I am about to say.

What I want to say is that while I am trying to answer what you have asked of me, I do want to register a protest at doing so. I do not enjoy this and I have not relished writing this post because I do not really find it fitting to have to go on and on and on at such great length to provide irrefutable Biblical evidence and whatever other exorbitantly high standards of proof you are putting on me to demonstrate that one side or the other of the baptism debate is in sin. The reason is that it's hard to argue this at length without unwittingly conveying something about the magnitude of the sin involved. Many of the prooftexts for question 113 in particular have to do with the rebellious and unbelieving Jews - hard-boiled God-hating sinners. I don't really want to have to drag out those verses for a debate on baptism because it fails to convey that I don't think this is a debate over an essential doctrine, I don't think this is a debate between "good" Christians and "bad" Christians, between orthodoxy or heterodoxy, between the devout and the lukewarm.

All I want to convey is this: simply that, as Rev. Winzer so eloquently put it (I wish I was half as articulate as he and so many of the others on this board), demerit before God is involved. The term for that is sin, and sin, per every serious Reformed theologian ever, goes beyond mere actions to embrace the core of who we are apart from Christ and what remains as part and parcel of our natural being in this life even after salvation. God expects us to keep all his holy law - period. He who breaks the law in one point is a breaker of all the law. He who breaks the law in a small point is a sinner worthy of damnation. But we don't necessarily have to do anything definable or tangible. A.A. Hodge gives a great definition of sin as disposition and inclination to do what which goes against God's law. Sin emanates from the very core of our being as sweat or exhaled breath.

With regard to the topic of baptism being used as an example or poster-boy for this concept... Either God wants us to baptize our infant children or he doesn't. One side or the other is wrong, and one side or the other has failed to perfectly grasp and apply God's covenantal dealing with us. In so doing, one side or the other has failed to properly understand God. If this isn't sin, I don't know what is, though it be not a heinous sin! With Rev. Winzer, I would expect others on this board to be well ahead of me in grasping this central idea of Reformed theology's conception of sin. I'm happy to assume the role of the party in error as regards this doctrinal divide for the sake of discussion if it will smooth the path toward understanding what this does and doesn't mean - that doctrinal error may be properly spoken of as a lack of conformity to the law of God and thereby may be properly understood as sin, without conflating the presence of sin and the degree of sinfulness.

(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).

And if they're not both true, then one is false. And if one is false, then it is wrong in God's eyes.

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).

If the Lord commands that baptism be tied to a profession of faith, then the principle is defiled when baptism is administered to an infant who can never understand in that moment or remember later on that the sacrament was applied to him, totally apart from any comprehension on his part. (I am happy to play devil's advocate!)

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).

Peter was in error. By God's grace, he repented and caught on quickly. He was out of conformity with God's law. The fact that he thought he was in conformity doesn't change this. The term for being out of conformity with God's law is sin. His error was sinful.

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

He repented quickly of his error, as did David when confronted about his sin with Bathsheba. Difference of degree: still sin.

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.

If I didn't believe there was a specific law of God that directs me to baptize my infant children, I wouldn't be paedobaptist.

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?

It's certainly possible. It has happened with the doctrine of justification by faith. Earlier Christians could be forgiven for having a synergistic view of salvation (note that even this casual use of the term "forgiven" implies wrong doing) - there's less excuse now.

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)

Prior to clicking send, I will confess my fear that this post will prove to be less than helpful and will only generate acrimony. I don't want to have to expound at great and tedious length the idea that if one position on baptism is right, the other is in error, and that error is sin in a very real sense of the word. I don't want to lose sight of Rev. Winzer's excellent pastoral treatment of the topic, something I don't seem to be able to match even when given his good example to go before me. "Sin" does not in this case equal heinous sin nor does it countervail the reality that I believe God will surely extend grace to those who come to the wrong conclusion after much prayer and careful study of Scripture - whether the wrong conclusion is about baptism or eschatology or ecclesiology or the appropriateness of integrating Thomist thought in a Reformed framework or about whether Clark was a Nestorian or VanTil a heterodox on the doctrine of God. It's just a reality that good Christians with good intent do things that are sinful and that fall under the Westminsterian (and biblical!) definition of sin. That these things are viewed by God as truly having some merit and goodness in them is due to his incredible grace to us and the way in which the Holy Spirit offers our prayers and thoughts up to Christ and then Christ, in his mediatorial office at the right hand of God, cleanses and purifies our actions, our doctrines, our thoughts and prayers and beliefs and deeds, so that when he presents them to his father they are worthy of being in his presence by virtue of being given to him "in Christ". But on our own... we fall short. If I say I don't feel a need to confess and repent my wrong views, it's because I don't believe we can possibly account for and adequately repent of every wrong view we hold. But then our entrance into heaven is not based on the completeness or worthiness of our repentance. It is Christ, not our apologies, that wipes away our sins completely once and for all.

I'll stop there for now and I pray that this post will accomplish something worthwhile.

 

[Frisian Gardener]

There are so many aspects to this question that are directly (if not indirectly) related to the Proverbs.

One of the things my kids don't understand is that I rarely accept an excuse that something was a mistake. It's not that I fail to consider their frame, but very often the reason why something gets broken or misplaced is due to carelessness.

I might come from being a Marine, but it drives me absolutely crazy sometimes when I see parents not watching their kids and a mishap is waiting to happen. For example, I'm on pins and needles when kids are roasting marshmallows around the fire. Not only am I concerned that one of them is going to burn themselves, but many of the kids are to paying attention to the sharp points as they wheel around a bunch of other kids around them.

The Proverbs are set up so that a young person will gain wisdom and avoid preventable mishaps. The simple walks down an alley and is naively enticed into sin. It's not a "promise" in the Proverbs that you will succeed if you walk the way of wisdom, but it is certain that you will destroy yourself or others with "mistakes" that are preventable if you think them through.

The Law of God regarding manslaughter is interesting. If you were out chopping wood with a friend and the axe head came off and flew through the air and killed him, you might call it a mistake. I'd call it a mishap. If you were living in OT Israel you'd need to flee to a city of refuge and live there until the death of the High Priest because, at any moment, the avenger of blood would have the right to kill you for a "mistake". One imagines that there were no formal "regulations" on how axe heads needed to be secured but one can also imagine that someone checked their axe head carefully to make sure it was secure and they also made sure their friend was not in a location where they could be killed if the axe head came off.

This is exactly the reason why every Marine learns four basic principles when handling a weapon:
1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Do not point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire.
4. Keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire.

I have not been on a range for 20 years, and I still remember those safety principles.

It's the reason why Marines never call it a "mistake" when someone is struck by a round on a rifle or pistol range. It is a mishap, and one of the safety rules was not followed, and the range safety officer was not doing his job.

This is not an exhaustive accounting of the notion of "mistakes" but is one of the reasons I am never ambivalent about the term

I was taught in law school that traffic "collision" is the better generic term than "accident" -- almost in every case, somebody had been careless. True accidents are rare and would involve more immediate providence -- the example given was a tree branch falling on a car being driven underneath.

Incidentally, I was also taught in that class that the Three Great Lies of Traffic Court are:
* "Two beers"
* "The light was yellow"
* "My car can't go that fast"

 

[Brian Kooshian]

I realize that is a very late response.

First, please let me apologize to and thank everyone who has graciously contributed to this thread. I did not mean to ghost the conversation. For some reason, I wasn't receiving any of the usual email notifications that people had replied, so when I logged in this morning, I was very surprised to see the massive discussion it had generated.

Second, at various points along the way, some have asked for more clarification of what I mean by "mistakes." What I am referring to are actions on our part that produce different and unwanted results, even though we have done our best. Perhaps it would help to provide some examples.

Example 1: I am writing a computer program and cannot get it to run due to errors in the code. I am working to the best of my ability, but it keeps crashing.

Example 2: I am doing a woodworking project and find that a piece of wood I just cut is slightly out of square and now useless because I misread the number on the miter gauge.

Example 3: I am singing a song in church, and my eyes skip down a line too far, and for a moment, I start singing the wrong verse.

Assuming I'm doing the best I can (no laziness or carelessness involved), I don't think any of these examples quite rise to the level of sin. But then, how does God's Word teach me to think about these things? Is it simply a matter of "You're an imperfect finite creature, so mistakes are inevitable. Deal with it"? or does the Bible offer any comfort for my daily mistakes?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Since mistakes are sins, how shall we live? Yes, God is gracious and merciful, yet He also commands us to be perfect. Anytime on earth we try something new or challenging, or both, like learning a language, or forcing checkmate, or integrating a function, or shooting a three-pointer, or baking a cake, or arguing a legal precedent, or growing a garden, runs the nigh-inevitable risk of sinful error. A tender-hearted soul might think, "if anything I try today, I do not get completely perfect, it would be sin. Sins that caused Christ to die, and grieve the Holy Spirit. And since I know my mistakes would be sins, trying, and not achieving perfection, would be deliberate and high-handed sins. Wouldn't it be better for the safety of my own soul for me to stay in bed all day?" How can we counsel such a one, without falling into the opposite ditch of cheap grace?

I believe that I dealt with this at #15.

And now that Brian has just responded, I'll say (as the PM does at Question Time in the Commons), "I refer the honorable [brother] to the answer I gave earlier" at #15.

Let me also, briefly, take up one of the examples: item 3. Whenever I do that, I am hardly doing anything "on purpose," and I'm quite sorry for it. But to say that there was no element (Brian mentions two things: laziness or carelessness) of carelessness involved would simply not be true. If I were being as careful as possible, I would not have sung the wrong stanza. I realize my mistake, I am sorry for my error, and I seek to correct it. I realize that there was some carelessness on my part, usually a lack of focus, something that bedevils the best of us, even in religious worship.

The Lord is so merciful and gracious and is more willing to forgive such slips as we recognize and correct them, again as I said in 15. The theology of this is addressed, as some have intimated, in a measure in WCF 5, esp. 5.6. God means by all trials, great and small, to soften us and to fit us for glory as his children who are never without discipline (Hebrews 12:7).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'll just add a note that systems that are based on life and death (or could cause serious injury) are designed to factor in human error or the failure of components where possible.

In software releases, one of the processes in integration is error checking as well as scanning for known vulnerabilities that a coder might have put into the code. Even deployment is protected through various methods to "back out" of a full release if a release causes problems.

The well-known Delta Airlines downtime is an example of the company ultimately blaming Crowdstrike for releasing code that caused the Blue Screen of Death on its machines. What's not widely reported is that they deployed a buggy release into full production all at once.

I could go on and non about my career as a Marine CommO and the precautions/procedures we put in place to change frequencies or change crypto keys at the right time. Humans err when they are tired or lack focus, but a discipline organization has procedures and safeguards that mitigate catastrophe.

It is, by the way, why so many safeguards are in place in the Nuclear arsenal. In one case, a nuclear bomb fell out of a USAF Aircraft years ago and the only thing keeping it from devastating a part of the US was a single component.

I know I'm a bit afield from the OP, but I'm just trained to think of ways to mitigate risk due to intentional or unintentional behavior that risk the lives of others. It is, by the way, the reason a ship's Captain is relieved of command even if one of his sailors is the proximate cause of a major mishap.

 

[Brian Kooshian]

Let me also, briefly, take up one of the examples: item 3. Whenever I do that, I am hardly doing anything "on purpose," and I'm quite sorry for it. But to say that there was no element (Brian mentions two things: laziness or carelessness) of carelessness involved would simply not be true. If I were being as careful as possible, I would not have sung the wrong stanza. I realize my mistake, I am sorry for my error, and I seek to correct it. I realize that there was some carelessness on my part, usually a lack of focus, something that bedevils the best of us, even in religious worship.

The Lord is so merciful and gracious and is more willing to forgive such slips as we recognize and correct them, again as I said in 15. The theology of this is addressed, as some have intimated, in a measure in WCF 5, esp. 5.6. God means by all trials, great and small, to soften us and to fit us for glory as his children who are never without discipline (Hebrews 12:7).

I can possibly see your point about my third example, but I am struggling to see the moral issue if I write a line of code that I thought would work, but that contains a mistake. I was not being lazy or careless, I was just wrong.

 

[Ploutos]

I can possibly see your point about my third example, but I am struggling to see the moral issue if I write a line of code that I thought would work, but that contains a mistake. I was not being lazy or careless, I was just wrong.

And in a perfect world, that wouldn't happen. That it happens in some way reflects the fallenness of this world.

 

[Brian Kooshian]

Or does it just reflect my finitude? Even in a perfect world, I would still be finite, and my knowledge would still be limited by my creatureliness.

 

[Ploutos]

Or does it just reflect my finitude? Even in a perfect world, I would still be finite, and my knowledge would still be limited by my creatureliness.

Your knowledge will be limited but it will be perfect insofar as it goes. There are no mistakes in a perfect world. I feel like that should be fairly clear based simply on dictionary definitions of the terms "perfect" and "mistake".

 

[TheInquirer]

I think we have to be careful with the word “perfect” in the New Heavens and the New Earth regarding our knowledge. Our knowledge, of God in particular, will ever be growing since we will still be finite beings who will never have the same knowledge of himself as he does. So “perfect” will not mean “filled to capacity” or “God-equivalent” but it will be morally “perfect” in its finitude.

Which gets me back to my original point - humans will always have limitations that do not correlate to moral deficiency. There is a distinction between willful negligence and carelessness which certainly have moral responsibility attached to it and nature human/creaturely limitation which does not.

 

[Brian Kooshian]

Your knowledge will be limited but it will be perfect insofar as it goes. There are no mistakes in a perfect world. I feel like that should be fairly clear based simply on dictionary definitions of the terms "perfect" and "mistake".

A person can make a mistake based on incomplete knowledge - in other words, a mistake of ignorance. In that case, is there any moral culpability for the mistake?

 

[Ploutos]

A lot of this discussion has gotten hung up on the issue of moral culpability for mistakes. Has a person "sinned" because they wrote a line of faulty code?

But I think that question starts from the wrong end of the tunnel. Instead of asking whether we are morally culpable for a faulty line of code - with the thinly-veiled implication that the next question is "do you really think God is going to send me to hell for a bad line of code?"... instead of asking that question, we should instead ask why we are capable of writing a faulty line of code.

And I think the answer to that is because we are fallen creatures in a fallen world. We wrote the bad line of code because we are already under wrath. Rather than questioning whether God will hold us morally responsible for writing a bad line of code or for stubbing our toes, we should be thinking about how because of the fall, we are already judgment-bound, and as judgment-bound creatures, we are under a curse that includes things like "accidents" and "mistakes" (though I fully agree with the wiser voices in this thread who have pointed out that there is, far more often than we'd like to admit, real culpability in such situations).

In heaven, we will be freed from this curse. We will no longer be under judgment either individually or corporately. The created order itself will be freed from the effects of the fall. We will then see God's plan for creation fully realized, and it will be a plan that has no mistakes. Everything will work perfectly, and we will be - though finite - free of all mistakes, errors, or oversights in thought, word, deed, and circumstance.

Meanwhile, in this world, I stubbed my toe as a reminder of the very stark reality that I am already (apart from Christ) morally culpable, under God's wrath, and headed for eternal judgment.

 

[bdavidc]

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

The Bible may not use the word “mistake” in the modern sense we often mean, like errors at work, misunderstandings, or unintentional slip-ups, but it absolutely gives wisdom for how to handle them. Ecclesiastes 9:11 says, “Time and chance happeneth to them all,” meaning that sometimes things go wrong simply because we’re human and live in a fallen world. We see examples of godly people making mistakes in their actions, decisions, and speech, and the key isn’t perfection, but how they respond afterward.

Proverbs is full of practical wisdom for daily life, including how to grow from failure. Proverbs 24:16 says, “For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again.” That doesn’t just apply to moral failure, it’s about perseverance when life doesn’t go as planned. Colossians 3:23 reminds us, “And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men.” Even if we make a mistake on the job or in daily life, if our heart is to serve God and learn, He sees it.

James 1:5 says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God... and it shall be given him.” Mistakes should drive us to seek more wisdom, not to give up. God isn't harsh with our weaknesses, He shapes us through them. Romans 8:28 reminds us that He can even use our failures for good if we love Him and are walking in His purpose. So no, the Bible doesn’t ignore daily mistakes, it gives us the tools to handle them with humility, perseverance, and grace.

 

[Brian Kooshian]

A lot of this discussion has gotten hung up on the issue of moral culpability for mistakes. Has a person "sinned" because they wrote a line of faulty code?

But I think that question starts from the wrong end of the tunnel. Instead of asking whether we are morally culpable for a faulty line of code - with the thinly-veiled implication that the next question is "do you really think God is going to send me to hell for a bad line of code?"

To make myself clear, what you saw as a "thinly-veiled implication that the next question is...[etc.]" was not where I was headed at all. TBH, it never even crossed my mind to ask that question, and I do not consider it within the scope of what I was asking in the OP.

I only asked about moral culpability because in #106, you appear to say that every error or mistake is morally culpable. Please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood you.

 

[Ploutos]

To make myself clear, what you saw as a "thinly-veiled implication that the next question is...[etc.]" was not where I was headed at all. TBH, it never even crossed my mind to ask that question, and I do not consider it within the scope of what I was asking in the OP.

I only asked about moral culpability because in #106, you appear to say that every error or mistake is morally culpable. Please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood you.

I apologize if it seems like I was specifically saying you were going in that direction. What I meant was that it seems like a very logical next question that is somewhat implied in the question about moral culpability from mistakes.

The point I was trying to make in post 106 is not so much about the moral culpability of every error. I was more trying to make the point that every error highlights the fact that we are born as those already morally culpable. In other words, the faulty line of code is a symptom of the disease, not the actual disease itself.

 

[MW]

Once again the discussion is omitting divine protection. That promises to keep you from certain consequences connected with your limitations. So if you were perfect you could expect perfect protection. God created us with our limitations, but He also created us to be protected by Him in those limitations.

 

[No Other Name]

Good morning everyone,

I had a lot to read from the weekend away from PB. (I am always away from PB over weekends).

On my second cup of joe, I will now just do a couple of quick replies.

Before I begin, my participation is largely academic and I see this as a discussion and not even a debate. I am not wholly sold on my position that "not all erroneous beliefs are sin",

but I am even less sold on the reasons thus far given for how "all erroneous beliefs are sin - no matter the degree".

Do we have a moral obligation to know and speak the truth? According to the Bible truth is a moral as well as an intellectual responsibility. We "obey" the truth and "do" the truth. If there is only one truth, that which does not accord with it is not true. That which is not true is by nature a moral failure.

I affirm all of this in terms of false beliefs that can be proven false objectively from Scripture. But thus far that is not the case between our two respective theologies.

I know you would say that doesn't matter, but I am unsure the case has been made Biblically. I guess my example of Peter doesn't help, because you say Peter was in sin and was convicted quickly. And I say the lack of sin specified in the context of instruction from our Lord helps my position.

So I say instruction does not always include a correction in moral failing, but you would disagree. And I am not confident yet one way or the other now.

Either way, it seems we both look at Acts 10 with an a priori view that informs our understanding of it, so maybe it doesn't work as an example?

Whether such a book will be written, I don't know. Obviously one has not been written to date, or, if it has, it hasn't yet had the effect of producing unity in the broader church.

So is it "sin" not to know how one can be wrong if it cannot be possibly known how one is wrong from God's revealed will?

(NOTE: I am not saying this is the case here on Earth between us respectively. I am now wondering if the "sin" you charge is even more universal than you suppose.

After all, would it not be the same degree of "sin" if one held the correct belief, but they only believe for reasons that stop short of full expression of the given shared revelation and the full use of tools to mine that special revelation? If you are right about "sin" and I am wrong, then this may be bigger than one supposes).

Prior to clicking send, I will confess my fear that this post will prove to be less than helpful and will only generate acrimony.

Nah, I am good, but if I wasn't that would be sin. And I agree. haha

Also I found I am in agreement with your specifics of how erroneous beliefs are sin when they are objectively shown to be outside of Biblical truth. But this comment made me pause. Yes, emotions may lead to sin - even if one has the correct belief.

Let me illustrate with two cases rooted in real life:

Case 1: I was talking with a pastor friend of mine - an advocate of New Covenant theology.

I argued (per Reformed theology) God made a covenant of works with Adam and Adam disobeyed all Ten Commandments in his heart and his action of eating the fruit. "How could he have broken the Ten Commandments if they didn't exist yet?" he protested. Wow, ok. No problem.

Long story short, I demonstrated patiently that his position has an inconsistency with the justice of punishing Adam for his sin, while also believing that the eternal nature of God's justice holds over all space and time.

I also showed him that God cannot have invented the Ten Commandments at Sinai (or more precisely, eternally know that he will invent something that does not exist beforehand) for then he is a God who changes. He had no response other than to say he cannot talk about this all day, and that was fine. Sadly, however, that was two years ago, and he has become more bullish on NCT than before and still has no response to my objections to his theology.

Do I believe he is in sin? Yes in two ways,

a) I believe I have objectively and consistently shown an inconsistency that he cannot (and literally has not) answered dictating he should alter his views or counter my position with a fully Biblical and consistent theological response that would objectively reveal my position comes from error and not truth.

b) He will engage no more. Emotional or non-emotional reasons notwithstanding, he is determined to hold onto his view in the face of any reasons not to. (And our denomination allows for any CT so there is nothing to hold him back. His credentials and position would not be on the table here).

Case 2: A believer who correctly believes the true covenant theology of the Bible (yet to be objectively revealed)

Imagine a believer in the true theology (1689) is discussing/debating with a believer in the almost-but not-factually-correct CT (Westminster).

Imagine that the "almost right" believer makes a point in his favor that the "exactly right" believer cannot really answer due merely to his limited experience in dialogue with competing CTs.

Now imagine he also (like the NCT Pastor above) recuses himself, ok, ... but he also never follows up and never investigates any further whatsoever. Is he sinning by not loving the Lord with all his mind and heart? Yes I believe so.

I mean, you and I and Rev. Winzer and I had a fun time sparring over a few portions of our respective theologies in the past.

I know we have not come up with an objectively undeniable Biblical case that so affirms our own position that we can look one to the other and confidently charge each other with rebellion or hard-heartedness or 1CV or 3CV, etc? Do you affirm this?

And I have endeavored to follow up to the best of my ability on new suggestive ramifications for if I am mistaken and how / or if you are mistaken or not and why not, etc.

But think about this: In God's providence, I cannot follow up much more than I already did on those portions of theology we discussed.

I presume you also cannot follow up on points raised much more than you have already done. We have church responsibilities, families, jobs, etc. And thank God for that!

By God's providence, this issue is not easy. It has not been objectively resolved in such a fashion that all genuinely saved believers must face the one true and correct interpretation of the one CT and unfailingly acquiesce to the pure and unadulterated Biblical truth of it.

I am beginning to wonder if that is even possible?

Even if it is possible, it would take an enormous amount of research and time and skills that - by God's providence - there may be only a handful of people alive right now that have the resources to even begin this.

If an objective case cannot be made, in the meantime, is it sin to not know Biblically and totally what cannot be known Biblically and totally?

If you still say it is, does it simply fall into the category of a stubbed toe / miscounting / the category of just life as a true disciple of Christ post-Fall pre-glory? I could agree there.

But you always made it seem like that cannot be possible because theses categories (stubbed toe vs. erroneous belief) have too many differences.

Once again the discussion is omitting divine protection. That promises to keep you from certain consequences connected with your limitations. So if you were perfect you could expect perfect protection. God created us with our limitations, but He also created us to be protected by Him in those limitations.

I tend to agree. I am just not sure if the limitations are fully ours as human disciples of Christ living in the state of post-Fall and pre-Glory, or if the limitations are willed by God providentially in such a way that they cannot possibly be removed objectively?

In other words, in good conscience and prayer, I come to the position of 1689 federalism and in good conscience and prayer, you and JP and so many other brothers in the Lord come to the position of Westminster federalism.

I know you say the one that is wrong is "in sin".

I am grateful that you put quotes around "sin" acknowledging that this is different than a Roman Catholic coming to his position in good conscience and prayer since we can objectively show how he is in Biblical error. You nor I would put his erroneous belief as sin in quotes, but sin by demonstrable Biblical evidence - direct and logically irrefutable.

But neither one of us can do so with the other that I am aware of? Does this not factor into a difference here?

Not a difference of degree but a difference in kind?
[automerge]1747673145[/automerge]

Good morning everyone,

I had a lot to read from the weekend away from PB. (I am always away from PB over weekends).

On my second cup of joe, I will now just do a couple of quick replies.

EDIT: It is now no longer morning and these replies were not "quick" hahaha

 

[Ploutos]

Before I begin, my participation is largely academic and I see this as a discussion and not even a debate. I am not wholly sold on my position that "not all erroneous beliefs are sin",

but I am even less sold on the reasons thus far given for how "all erroneous beliefs are sin - no matter the degree".

Like you, this is somewhat of an exploration for me in that I am learning/refining as I go.

I affirm all of this in terms of false beliefs that can be proven false objectively from Scripture. But thus far that is not the case between our two respective theologies.

You don't think it can be proven false objectively from Scripture. I do, and Benjamin Keach did (though coming to the opposite conclusion).

On the flip side, covenant theology is not exactly Christianity 101. So your NCT friend could easily use this same argument that his belief is not a false belief that can be objectively proven from Scripture.

I know you would say that doesn't matter, but I am unsure the case has been made Biblically. I guess my example of Peter doesn't help, because you say Peter was in sin and was convicted quickly. And I say the lack of sin specified in the context of instruction from our Lord helps my position.

So I say instruction does not always include a correction in moral failing, but you would disagree. And I am not confident yet one way or the other now.

Either way, it seems we both look at Acts 10 with an a priori view that informs our understanding of it, so maybe it doesn't work as an example?


So is it "sin" not to know how one can be wrong if it cannot be possibly known how one is wrong from God's revealed will?

Is it sin to not become saved if one cannot possibly become saved because one has no access to the gospel? I know that's an extreme example, but I think the same principle applies. We are all without excuse for every way in which we fall short.

(NOTE: I am not saying this is the case here on Earth between us respectively. I am now wondering if the "sin" you charge is even more universal than you suppose.

After all, would it not be the same degree of "sin" if one held the correct belief, but they only believe for reasons that stop short of full expression of the given shared revelation and the full use of tools to mine that special revelation? If you are right about "sin" and I am wrong, then this may be bigger than one supposes).

It would be sin. Maybe not the same degree, but sin nonetheless.

Our best deeds are marked by sin in this life. That's why we can't rely on them to even help us into heaven. God graciously accords merit to our good works, but it's on the basis of his love toward us and not on the basis of anything in us or in our best works.

Nah, I am good, but if I wasn't that would be sin. And I agree. haha

Also I found I am in agreement with your specifics of how erroneous beliefs are sin when they are objectively shown to be outside of Biblical truth. But this comment made me pause. Yes, emotions may lead to sin - even if one has the correct belief.

Let me illustrate with two cases rooted in real life:

Case 1: I was talking with a pastor friend of mine - an advocate of New Covenant theology.

I argued (per Reformed theology) God made a covenant of works with Adam and Adam disobeyed all Ten Commandments in his heart and his action of eating the fruit. "How could he have broken the Ten Commandments if they didn't exist yet?" he protested. Wow, ok. No problem.

Long story short, I demonstrated patiently that his position has an inconsistency with the justice of punishing Adam for his sin, while also believing that the eternal nature of God's justice holds over all space and time.

I also showed him that God cannot have invented the Ten Commandments at Sinai (or more precisely, eternally know that he will invent something that does not exist beforehand) for then he is a God who changes. He had no response other than to say he cannot talk about this all day, and that was fine. Sadly, however, that was two years ago, and he has become more bullish on NCT than before and still has no response to my objections to his theology.

Do I believe he is in sin? Yes in two ways,

a) I believe I have objectively and consistently shown an inconsistency that he cannot (and literally has not) answered dictating he should alter his views or counter my position with a fully Biblical and consistent theological response that would objectively reveal my position comes from error and not truth.

b) He will engage no more. Emotional or non-emotional reasons notwithstanding, he is determined to hold onto his view in the face of any reasons not to. (And our denomination allows for any CT so there is nothing to hold him back. His credentials and position would not be on the table here).

Just as you don't have time to engage with every disagreement, he may not have time to get into this with you. It may not rise to the level of priority for him in his busy scheduled where he feels a need to deal with it. And, as mentioned above, he may not feel this is objectively demonstrable from Scripture.

Case 2: A believer who correctly believes the true covenant theology of the Bible (yet to be objectively revealed)

Says you! I don't mean to harp on this so repeatedly to the point of excess, because I acknowledge that Scripture speaks with less explicit clarity on this topic than it does on, say, the divinity of Christ. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not objectively provable from Scripture. I would say that Scripture speaks with more clarity on this than it does on some of the details of eschatology.

Imagine a believer in the true theology (1689) is discussing/debating with a believer in the almost-but not-factually-correct CT (Westminster).

Imagine that the "almost right" believer makes a point in his favor that the "exactly right" believer cannot really answer due merely to his limited experience in dialogue with competing CTs.

Now imagine he also (like the NCT Pastor above) recuses himself, ok, ... but he also never follows up and never investigates any further whatsoever. Is he sinning by not loving the Lord with all his mind and heart? Yes I believe so.

I mean, you and I and Rev. Winzer and I had a fun time sparring over a few portions of our respective theologies in the past.

I know we have not come up with an objectively undeniable Biblical case that so affirms our own position that we can look one to the other and confidently charge each other with rebellion or hard-heartedness or 1CV or 3CV, etc? Do you affirm this?

And I have endeavored to follow up to the best of my ability on new suggestive ramifications for if I am mistaken and how / or if you are mistaken or not and why not, etc.

But think about this: In God's providence, I cannot follow up much more than I already did on those portions of theology we discussed.

I presume you also cannot follow up on points raised much more than you have already done. We have church responsibilities, families, jobs, etc. And thank God for that!

By God's providence, this issue is not easy. It has not been objectively resolved in such a fashion that all genuinely saved believers must face the one true and correct interpretation of the one CT and unfailingly acquiesce to the pure and unadulterated Biblical truth of it.

I am beginning to wonder if that is even possible?

Even if it is possible, it would take an enormous amount of research and time and skills that - by God's providence - there may be only a handful of people alive right now that have the resources to even begin this.

If an objective case cannot be made, in the meantime, is it sin to not know Biblically and totally what cannot be known Biblically and totally?

I mean this is the whole point. This is why we need grace, and a humble assessment of what we are capable of in this life. This is why the Heidelberg Catechism talks about a "small beginning of obedience in this life". This thread right here is a living application of it. When you stop to think about what perfection entails, and what we will be like in our perfected and glorified state - no doctrinal confusion, no stubbed toes, no mosquito bites, no oversights or accidental words - only growth in perfection for all of eternity - you get a better idea for just how immensely we fall short. And you get a better idea how much we need grace not only at the start of our salvific journey but at every step of the way afterwards.

All of the doctrinal debates on here - all of the mishandled and misapplied doctrines in churches and denominations and marriages and individuals - it all goes to show how wretched this fallen world is and just how utterly and thoroughly we are all contaminated by sin. Did we think that Paul - objectively one of the most holy, righteous, and doctrinally correct people in all of recorded history - was being hyperbolic when he wrote Romans 7 and said "oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death"?

If you still say it is, does it simply fall into the category of a stubbed toe / miscounting / the category of just life as a true disciple of Christ post-Fall pre-glory? I could agree there.

Maybe. I'm not Romanist, so I don't believe in clearly delineated categories of mortal and venial sin. So I'm not prepared (whether by design or by ignorance, I don't yet know) to delineate where one crosses the line from "doctrinal error" sin to "miscounting" sin. I don't know that I need to delineate that line. It all reflects our sinful fallen state. It all reflects our need for grace. And it is God's grace, not the cleverness or thoroughness or magnitude of our repentance, that wipes away whatever degree of sin we've just committed.

But you always made it seem like that cannot be possible because theses categories (stubbed toe vs. erroneous belief) have too many differences.

I know that above I said that I don't know that it's appropriate to delineate these categories with too much specificity, but yes, I do think there is a difference. I suppose it would be like saying "over here you have numbers that round down to 1 and over here you have numbers that round up to 2" and then saying "ok, now find the largest possible number that rounds down to 1 / the smallest possible number that rounds up to 2". A stubbed toe is an accident - but it does reflect the fall in that it involves pain, suffering, and a wrong calculation. As Prof. Strange said, there is a lot more carelessness than we are willing to admit, so I think one can make a case that a stubbed toe involved not paying sufficient attention. Maybe one could make a case that it's not perfectly adhering to the sixth commandment mandate to care for our own life and well-being. If it is sin, it is certainly sin in a very very small degree. But even apart from volitional sin, it absolutely reflects our fallen state and it's something that won't be present in heaven. Also, as Rev. Winzer has pointed out, it reflects that God's protection over his loved ones is not yet fully realized in this life.

Erroneous belief - while I don't want to try to draw a line between that and a stubbed toe - I do think there is a difference in that it does involve a deliberate and conscious arrival at a certain conclusion. While it also reflects the effects of the fall noetically, it's more... intentional?

I tend to agree. I am just not sure if the limitations are fully ours as human disciples of Christ living in the state of post-Fall and pre-Glory, or if the limitations are willed by God providentially in such a way that they cannot possibly be removed objectively?

Yes to both? I don't know that I'd say they cannot be removed objectively though I would have no trouble saying they will not be removed objectively.

In other words, in good conscience and prayer, I come to the position of 1689 federalism and in good conscience and prayer, you and JP and so many other brothers in the Lord come to the position of Westminster federalism.

I know you say the one that is wrong is "in sin".

I am grateful that you put quotes around "sin" acknowledging that this is different than a Roman Catholic coming to his position in good conscience and prayer since we can objectively show how he is in Biblical error. You nor I would put his erroneous belief as sin in quotes, but sin by demonstrable Biblical evidence - direct and logically irrefutable.

But neither one of us can do so with the other that I am aware of? Does this not factor into a difference here?

Not a difference of degree but a difference in kind?

Yes, in sin in the way that all believers remain in sin all the time. It is not the same as a Roman Catholic who wilfully and knowingly maintains his belief system. For one thing, that person is most likely not a Christian, which is a very different conclusion than I'd ever come to for you. At the same time, it is truly a sin, either on your part or mine, and apart from the grace of Christ, that sin by itself would be sufficient to damn us even if we were perfect in every other respect.

Whether it's a difference of degree or kind - not sure how to answer that. In one respect, it's all sin and incurs God's wrath, so it's not a difference of kind. On the other hand, one is the remaining imperfection of a follower of God while the other is the wilful embrace of a system incompatible with the gospel of Christ - but is the difference of kind in the sin or in the person? There are no "damning" or "non-damning" distinctions of sin, so I think if there's a difference of kind, it's a difference of kind as regards God's decreed will toward that person, not necessarily a difference of kind in the sin itself.

 

[MW]

So is it "sin" not to know how one can be wrong if it cannot be possibly known how one is wrong from God's revealed will?

(NOTE: I am not saying this is the case here on Earth between us respectively. I am now wondering if the "sin" you charge is even more universal than you suppose.

After all, would it not be the same degree of "sin" if one held the correct belief, but they only believe for reasons that stop short of full expression of the given shared revelation and the full use of tools to mine that special revelation? If you are right about "sin" and I am wrong, then this may be bigger than one supposes).

Arminians argue against the Calvinist position which holds the sinner guilty because he doesn't know and keep God's commandments. They maintain ability is the measure of culpability. Calvinists say, in reply, that man once knew and kept God's commandments but has now fallen from that state. All men, therefore, are culpable for their ignorance and inability.

Of course Ignorance, in and of itself, is not sin. It is sin when we are required to know something. If it is God's revealed will we are required to know it and have the means to know it. So ignorance in this respect is sin.

There are many things we would have known and been able to do if we were in a state of innocence, enjoying the blessing of God in the garden, and kept by His protection. That we are no longer in this state is man's fault.

 

[No Other Name]

I think I am seeing a bit clearer now and want to make sure I am being understood and make clear where my next study should be focused.

I do, and Benjamin Keach did (though coming to the opposite conclusion).

Yeah, I know you do haha. Ironically, Keach softened a bit: In his work Glory of a True Church, he had a quote that effused completely Christian and brotherly love and charity towards you all. I cannot recall it. It was in my copy of Renihan's exposition of 1689 in Chapter 26. I can look it up when I go home later today.

So your NCT friend could easily use this same argument that his belief is not a false belief that can be objectively proven from Scripture.

No, not when he disengages. He would try to subjectively assert that he was being objective, but I have direct evidence to the contrary.

Is it sin to not become saved if one cannot possibly become saved because one has no access to the gospel? I know that's an extreme example, but I think the same principle applies

How can the same principle apply when we do have access to God's fully revealed will for us? If there is a necessarily derived case for one or the other CT that is objective and Biblically undeniable for any who claim the Bible as the source of truth, then I will be happy to accede.

We are all without excuse for every way in which we fall short.

Yes, I do not disagree and never have. The question is if this is a case of either falling short and how and why.

God graciously accords merit to our good works, but it's on the basis of his love toward us and not on the basis of anything in us or in our best works.

Of course! That is kinda my point. Someone is wrong, and God in His grace not only accords merit to works for His kingdom despite the wrongness, but in His Providence has not revealed (?) or has not yet allowed the potentially-forthcoming Clinching Ultimate Biblical Covenant Theology ...

Just as you don't have time to engage with every disagreement, he may not have time to get into this with you

I appreciate you giving him the benefit of the doubt. This case is not that. No more particulars of course, but he has rolled up his sleeves in the meantime in CT

But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not objectively provable from Scripture

Ok

Did we think that Paul - objectively one of the most holy, righteous, and doctrinally correct people in all of recorded history - was being hyperbolic when he wrote Romans 7 and said "oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death"?

No?

Maybe. I'm not Romanist, so I don't believe in clearly delineated categories of mortal and venial sin. So I'm not prepared (whether by design or by ignorance, I don't yet know) to delineate where one crosses the line from "doctrinal error" sin to "miscounting" sin. I don't know that I need to delineate that line.

Oh me neither. That is why I am questioning if it is sin at all. If even a little bit sin in degree, then it is damnable.

But if the lack of the objective case for one confessional covenant theology over the other is impossible to put together from Scripture, then it is not in God's revealed will and if not in God's revealed will, then the correct one (for there can only be one correct and not both) must be in God's hidden or secret will.

As Prof. Strange said, there is a lot more carelessness than we are willing to admit, so I think one can make a case that a stubbed toe involved not paying sufficient attention.

On this note, carelessness regarding any doctrine - correct or incorrect - is a sin, which was my point regarding emotions and neglect of investigating further without lacking in normal duties we are called to.

Yes to both? I don't know that I'd say they cannot be removed objectively though I would have no trouble saying they will not be removed objectively.

Ok, very well, but then it would not be yes to both. You would then affirm my first of two possible reasons for our limitations: that "the limitations are fully ours as human disciples of Christ living in the state of post-Fall and pre-Glory" (italics added from my OP) - and so therefore, the wrong CT = sin.

However, this now puts us in a new bind. Repeating what I said earlier: "After all, would it not be the same degree of sin if one held the correct belief, yet they only believe for reasons that stop short of full expression of the given shared revelation and the full use of tools to mine that special revelation?

If you are right about "sin" and I am wrong (as hypothetical as our positions may be), then this may be bigger than one supposes"

In other words, if Christ wrote a letter to the Church in America, (and on the issue of doctrine per se), would it commend us for correct doctrine or would it say we all have stopped short in teaching and instruction one brother to the other?

Whether it's a difference of degree or kind - not sure how to answer that.

This seems critical to me. If a sinful belief is in error but only to a lesser degree, then it is still sin. After all, I agree with you; we are not Romanists.

If a belief is in error unto a different kind of error so that it cannot be objectively shown to be in sin outside of one's interpretive lens, then (at the very least) it cannot be called sin. until either:

a) we have an objective case to make so that we can go ahead and charge the other with 1CV, 3CV etc.

(Keach tried but I am unconvinced he proved Presbyterians baptize babies as simply holding to a Romish tradition that no single one of them in the early days thought to look into Scriptures about it making it a clear cut case of "idolatry")

or

b) we have exhausted our investigations into the differing hermeneutics of one position vs. the other and no case can be made to charge the other position with sin

There are no "damning" or "non-damning" distinctions of sin, so I think if there's a difference of kind, it's a difference of kind as regards God's decreed will toward that person, not necessarily a difference of kind in the sin itself.

You lost me at the bolded. I am saying the difference in kind of error is such that it is not sin at all.

And it seems to me that unless one can produce such a charge Biblically as to the case for how and why the CT is in sin, it should not be so called. Here, I know you agree. I know you would disagree with either one of our CTs being called sin by one of our proponents who has an emotionally-charged "cage-stage" type of argument. I am grateful for that.

And I get that you think whichever one is wrong is factually sin when confronted with reality in Glory. I am not necessarily disagreeing, but I would still stop short of agreeing based on my case made here. If it is factually sin, then it must follow that God has providentially made it so the case could be made from one CT vs. the other so that the charge of sin could be proven using God's law in its fullest revelation.

Be very clear, I am not arguing that the objective case cannot possibly be made. I am more now in the position of marveling at how many centuries have gone by where this has never happened. Has it ever been attempted?

I don't mean like Malone's book on baptism. That was so focused on baptism that he didn't touch the covenants and 1689 federalists disagree with his "one covenant- two administrations". Every attempt - there always is something that holds it back from the fullest expression of pure and unalduterated Biblical truth.

I suspect the core of the issue comes to "good and necessary consequences". I suspect the head of the fork in our road starts there.

Let me know what you think. You all are the best. I love this board.