Sins vs. Transgressions

[Philip]

This topic came up recently in a seminary class, so I thought I would put the question to you: is there a difference between sins and transgressions?

Example: if a child decides to climb on the roof of the house (usually) he is sinning. He knows that his mother probably won't allow it. If the mother says "don't climb on the roof" and the child climbs, he is now a transgressor, because there is a law.

Biblical illustration: did Adam transgress the fourth commandment? No. While the sabbath principle was already implicit in the order of creation, there was not yet a command given, therefore while Adam broke the law (which consisted of one command at the time) he did not transgress the fourth commandment, as the commandment had not yet been given.

Second biblical example: Cain sinned in killing his brother, but did not transgress. God warns Cain, saying "Sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” but he gives no direct command. Then God punishes Cain for his sin, but it is not until Genesis 9 that the explicit command is given. Cain sinned but did not transgress because no command had been given (Romans 4:15).

Am I off the rails here?

 

[a mere housewife]

I wonder if then something could be a 'sin' and not be a 'transgression': for instance, if we don't have faith that something is pleasing to God, but do it anyway -- it is 'sin' to us; even though it may not be an actual transgression of His law (so we aren't to tempt others to sin against their conscience, even if the thing they hold to be a 'transgression' is a matter of liberty)?

 

[au5t1n]

I think your definitions may be accurate and have some usefulness, as long as we bear in mind that since we know the moral law by nature, at the end of the day all sins must be transgressions in one sense at least.

Regarding the sabbath example, it seems to me that Gen. 3:8 implies there was more communication between God and Adam and Eve than is recorded for our benefit. In light of this, since the sabbath was made for man, I believe Adam received instruction concerning the sabbath.

 

[au5t1n]

I wonder if then something could be a 'sin' and not be a 'transgression': for instance, if we don't have faith that something is pleasing to God, but do it anyway -- it is 'sin' to us; even though it may not be an actual transgression of His law (so we aren't to tempt others to sin against their conscience, even if the thing they hold to be a 'transgression' is a matter of liberty)?

It would then be a transgression of the moral law not to act without faith, wouldn't it?

 

[Philip]

Right, that would be an example. I'm thinking James 4:17 here. If there is something that is clearly within my means to do and I don't do it, it is sin, even if I have not transgressed a commandment as such.

 

[Philip]

I think your definitions may be accurate and have some usefulness, as long as we bear in mind that since we know the moral law by nature, at the end of the day all sins must be transgressions in one sense at least.

I'm thinking, though, of Paul's statement that God has overlooked Gentile ignorance in the past (Acts 17) but now calls all to repent. I'm most certainly not claiming that this is an excuse for sin, or that in some sense all have transgressed (we all are transgressors in Adam) merely that we might be able to make this distinction generally.

 

[au5t1n]

I think that "iniquities and transgressions and sins" are different angles or emphases on the same basic thing, just like "signs and wonders and mighty deeds," "statutes and commandments and judgments," "psalms, hymns, and songs," and many other such examples in Scripture.

 

[au5t1n]

I think your definitions may be accurate and have some usefulness, as long as we bear in mind that since we know the moral law by nature, at the end of the day all sins must be transgressions in one sense at least.

I'm thinking, though, of Paul's statement that God has overlooked Gentile ignorance in the past (Acts 17) but now calls all to repent. I'm most certainly not claiming that this is an excuse for sin, or that in some sense all have transgressed (we all are transgressors in Adam) merely that we might be able to make this distinction generally.

I think that's fair. As I recall from sermons past, the Hebrew word usually translated "transgression" carries a connotation of "crossing a boundary." Or was it Greek? I don't remember, I'm sorry. Although transgression occurs very often in the OT, I think it may have been the Greek word that was being addressed because it was contrasted with Greek hamartia - sin - which is more along the lines of "missing the mark."

 

[Afterthought]

Do these have any relevance in determining the question?


WSC
Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

WLC
Q. 24. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.


1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

 

[au5t1n]

Quite so, Raymond, but it doesn't prevent "sin" and "transgression" from highlighting different things about the nature of sin -- the fact that it misses the mark (sin), that it crosses a boundary line (transgression), that it is heinous in God's sight (iniquity), etc.

All right, I need to stop spamming this thread. Sorry!

 

[Philip]

All right, I need to stop spamming this thread. Sorry!

No, this is all really helpful.

Do these have any relevance in determining the question?

I guess my question is what is meant here. I agree with the confession that all transgressions are sins. The question is whether all sins are transgressions.

My translation of 1 John 3:4 translates: "Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practises lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." Is this a textual issue?

 

[Afterthought]

I guess my question is what is meant here. I agree with the confession that all transgressions are sins. The question is whether all sins are transgressions.

Since definitions are if and only if statements, if the catechism was intending to be that precise, then we could say with certainty that not all sins are transgressions: some are the want of conformity unto the law of God [any law of God]. But 1 John 3:4 is trickier, since it depends on what sort of identity the "is" was intended to convey. There does seem to be a difference between our categorization of what the Scriptures teach and the use of the terms within the Scriptures or the highlighting of different aspects of the nature of sin, and the answer to the question seems to depend on which realm one is looking for an answer in (e.g., as Austin mentioned, "sin" [missing the mark] is a particular aspect of the nature of "sin" [our general category]). But that's probably the most I could say on the matter. Perhaps something in the Greek would show what kind of identity is given by "is"?

My translation of 1 John 3:4 translates: "Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practises lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." Is this a textual issue?

From looking at the blue letter bible, it doesn't seem to be a textual issue.


Edit: I found this useful concerning Romans 5:12-21 (at least, that's how I've understood the passage).

 

[Philip]

I guess there are several things here:

1) I am not suggesting that all are not transgressors. Insofar as in Adam's fall we all sin, we are all transgressors.

2) The law written on the conscience is not what I mean here by law. It means that ignorance is no excuse. It is what we ought to know, but are wilfully ignorant of. But self-deception is real deception and wilfull ignorance is still ignorance. For those who do not have special revelation, there is no law but the twisted remembrances of the law written on the heart (a positive account of this would be the final sections of C.S. Lewis's Abolition of Man).

3) What I do mean by law is the direct revealed will and command of God. The nations around Israel, for instance, were judged not for breaking the law, but for opposing God's people. Even the Canaanites were punished not for transgression, but because of Noah's curse and because they had fallen into abomination.

 

[Loopie]

What are your thoughts on Isaiah 24:1-6, where all the peoples of the world are being viewed as having transgressed laws and violated the eternal covenant? I think it is possible that there seems to be a slight difference between transgressions and sins, but it's hard to pinpoint it. It certainly is feasible that all transgressions are sins, but not all sins are transgressions if we define 'transgression' as a violation or 'crossing' of an explicit command given by God. That is, sin covers anything that is contrary to God's will and character, whereas a transgression is a purposeful violation of an explicitly given command.

Isaiah 24:1-6 (NASB)
1 Behold, the LORD lays the earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface and scatters its inhabitants.
2 And the people will be like the priest, the servant like his master, the maid like her mistress, the buyer like the seller, the lender like the borrower, the creditor like the debtor.
3 The earth will be completely laid waste and completely despoiled, for the LORD has spoken this word.
4 The earth mourns and withers, the world fades and withers, the exalted of the people of the earth fade away.
5 The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore, a curse devours the earth, and those who live in it are held guilty. Therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men are left.

 

[MW]

Second biblical example: Cain sinned in killing his brother, but did not transgress. God warns Cain, saying "Sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

This is an unhappy translation which will have unhappy theological consequences if it is consistently followed, particularly in the direction of Pelagianism. The passage is best understood in terms of the right of the firstborn; sin is a sin-offering. If Cain acted as the firstborn and offered the sin-offering Abel's desire ("subjection") would be to his brother's priestly function, and Cain would bear the rule of the firstborn over Abel.

1 John 3:4 specifically states sin is the transgression of the law, or lawlessness. Romans 5:13 states sin is not imputed where there is no law. There are obvious nuances in the terms but they should not be used to create a dichotomy.

 

[a mere housewife]

Rev. Winzer -- what is it to be considered when people's consciences may actually lead them astray, against the law (but to go against their consciences would also be wrong) -- or when there is an area of liberty, necessarily an area where the law is not the paradigm, but a person's conscience still leads them to a conviction, against which they cannot go without doing wrong. Should that be called 'sin'? Is it a 'transgression' even though trying to apply the law is so complicated?

So -- I hope this example won't prove a distraction -- Individual A believes in Exclusive Psalmody, is a paedobaptist, thinks that there ought to be alcohol in the Lord's table. Individual B is equally convicted that one ought to sing hymns, ought never to taste alcohol, and ought not to baptise infants. The resolution isn't for B to just do what A believes, against conscience -- because there is something very wrong involved in going against conscience, when we think we are informed by the word of God. But Individual A necessarily believes that B is transgressing the law by obeying his conscience. -- Then, what would B be doing if he went against conscience? It seems like he would be (on the assumption of individual A) keeping the law, but still somehow committing a greater wrong in going against the principle of a conscience (I am sorry if that is terribly confused). What is that greater wrong called, when it isn't technically the same as breaking the law?

The other scenario is more simple. In an area that is a matter of liberty -- like wearing a wedding ring -- if a person's conviction leads them to believe it would be sin to do so, and they do so, they are not actually transgressing a *law* (by definition, if it is a matter of liberty) but they are still transgressing their conscience? (And it would be sin for anyone to convince them to wear one against their conscience?)

. . . Of course the reality grips me that my conscience is a hideous tyrant that could readily convince me that it is a greater wrong to disobey itself than God's word.

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer -- what is it to be considered when people's consciences may actually lead them astray, against the law (but to go against their consciences would also be wrong) -- or when there is an area of liberty, necessarily an area where the law is not the paradigm, but a person's conscience still leads them to a conviction, against which they cannot go without doing wrong. Should that be called 'sin'? Is it a 'transgression' even though trying to apply the law is so complicated?

"Sin" and "transgression" are the appropriate terms. What is not of faith is sin. The apostle teaches that in a case of indifference it is sin "to the person." It cannot be stated to be sin absolutely, in the sense that God condemns it, but it is sin relatively because the person condemns it.

"Indifference" is usually thought to be an action which is neither right nor wrong. This is not possible in the concrete, even though the term is used that way in the abstract. In the concrete an indifferent action must be weighed according to expediency, and Scripture teaches expediency must follow the rules of piety, charity, and purity. Piety -- doing all things to the glory of God; charity -- seeking to edify our neighbour; purity -- having the testimony of a good conscience. Taking these rules into account, and realising we were not created to be morally neutral or indifferent, James 4:17 teaches, to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

The example of hymn singing is not morally equal on both sides. The exclusive psalmodist holds to a limitation because he believes Scripture teaches it. Those who are not exclusive psalmodists believe there is freedom; they do not believe Scripture mandates the singing of particular songs. In the one case there is a belief the conscience is bound by divine prescription; in the other conscience is treated as free.

The paedobaptist/antipaedobaptist example is equal on both sides. Both function according to a belief in divine prescription. Although not moral law, it is positive law, and acting contrary to it would be sin.

The example of alcohol takes in two different ideas. The first is the Lord's supper as a positive institution; the second is the right of private judgment in a matter of expediency. The alcohol in the Lord's supper would negate the idea that alcohol ought never to be taken. On the other hand, as a private judgment, one might conclude it is safest not to drink alcohol. In that case he is treating it as a matter of expediency and it would be sin to act contrary to that conviction. In this case the sin is not in the action, but the circumstances surrounding the action.

 

[a mere housewife]

Thank you, Rev. Winzer, for taking the time to make all of that clear -- I always find so much to think on and understand more fully when you answer a question and that is the case here. It did raise one further question: I know some who believe that hymn singing is commanded by Scripture, and some who believe that the Bible absolutely forbids alcohol and that the wine in the institution is really grape juice. Would they then be functioning according to a belief in Divine Prescription in those areas -- would the EP/wine proponent see them as doing so in those cases? Or are these the proper distinctions to be made from the point of view of the EP/wine proponent, because of the convictions involved for his own conscience?

 

[MW]

Would they then be functioning according to a belief in Divine Prescription in those areas -- would the EP/wine proponent see them as doing so in those cases?

If they thought they were following divine prescription, then that would be the belief-process; but it appears the concept of "prescription" has undergone a change, and further clarification is needed to inform the conscience as to what constitutes divine prescription.

An erring conscience needs correction, especially where it is bound by a false interpretation of Scripture. Where Scripture has been systemically misunderstood the process of correction will require something in the order of a paradigm shift.