I have had two conversations recently that revealed a similar concept, that if two Christians disagree on some theological or lifestyle issue, one or both of them is “in sin” and should repent. Is that really true? Are differences in doctrine rooted in sin? Must disagreements be settled by repentance?
Dr. Malcolm Yarnell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary created some controversy a few years ago at the height of the Baptist Identity debate among Southern Baptists. We believe that baptism is meant to be performed after conversion by immersion – that’s why we are called Baptists. We understand that many fine Christians disagree on this issue – people who love Jesus, trust God’s Word and study it carefully, but come to a different conclusion about this subject.
In an blogpost, Yarnell said this:
My conscience will not allow me to seek an ecclesial coalition “together for the gospel” with the Presbyterians (or the Methodists), because these errant believers directly disobey our Lord Jesus Christ with regard to baptism.
Yarnell sees those who practice paedobaptism as “errant believers.” I agree with that. I believe that the Bible teaches baptism of believers by immersion. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be a Baptist. But then he crosses a line I am not comfortable crossing. He says that paedobaptists, “directly disobey our Lord Jesus.” He does not just see paedobaptism as disagreement, but as disobedience.
In a lengthy (and productive) exchange with David Rogers, Yarnell defends that position and makes clear that he believes those who diverge from established Baptist doctrine as being in sinful disobedience.
In the ninth letter of that series, Yarnell makes this conclusion:
There is often hesitation on the part of one group of sincere Christians in direct opposition to the faithfulness of another group. This does not always cast doubt upon their salvation (though it might) but may reflect incomplete fidelity to Christ in discipleship.
For instance, Presbyterians refuse to obey Jesus Christ in an orderly manner and “baptize” (actually, just bathe) their babies. Paedobaptists may be sincere Christians but they doubt Christ’s command and hesitate to institute it correctly, thereby deceiving their own children. Again, Pentecostals and some Charismatics may refuse to judge their profound experiences according to the clear teaching of God’s Word by hesitating to reject unbiblical doctrines. Yet again, many ecumenists typically refuse to discern the body of Christ and out of well-meant but misplaced sentimentality doubt they should discipline Christians who institute practices not in accord with Scripture.
He sees Baptists (those who follow that doctrine which he defines as true Baptist doctrine) as faithful and sees divergence from that doctrine as infidelity to Christ. He does not question their salvation but does categorize them as in a state of disobedience and sin. He gives three examples of this idea – Presbyterians for their paedobaptism, Pentecostals and Charismatics for their failure to judge their experiences by scripture and ecumenists for their failure to practice discernment.
I agree with Yarnell’s theology in whole (though I think he adds some extra-biblical conditions on baptism – that’s a debate for another day). I am committed to believer’s baptism. I am not charismatic, though much less offended by those practices than many Baptists. And, as I have said in this series, I think that ecumenism has to stop at the Brick Wall.
But I disagree with Yarnell’s conclusion, and that of others I have talked to, that theological disagreement is inherently sinful. That is only true is one accepts the finality of a certain doctrinal position, creed or confession. Some in the Reformed camp are convinced that truth is found in the historic confessions and creeds and view any disagreement with those as heresy. I have know of charismatics who believed that anyone who did not practice “the gifts” were either not saved or practicing a seriously defective Christianity. And there are many Baptists who accept the “Baptist is biblical” credo and hence can assert that any divergence from established Baptist doctrine is sinful disobedience.
I would present another scenario. Each of us is saved not only out of sin but out of a world sown with the lies of Satan. ”The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so that they cannot see the truth” (2 Corinthians 4:4). ”Satan is a liar and the father of lies and when he lies, he speaks his native tongue” (John 8:44). We are all born into a world of lies and enslaved by those lies. Then, we receive the gospel of Jesus Christ and are passed from death unto life. In addition to everything else that happens, our minds are opened by the Spirit of God and we have the ability to receive the truth.
As we study God’s Word, the Spirit guides us in the process of replacing the lies of Satan with the truth of God. This is a continual, lifelong process. In a sense, it is sin that causes our limited understanding of the full revelation of God in scripture. But that does not mean that we must condemn those who disagree with us as disobedient and unfaithful. We are all in a process of being conformed to the image of Christ and having our minds reprogrammed to exhibit the mind of Christ. In the meantime, we are not all going to be at the same place spiritually or theologically.
While I am becoming more like Christ I cannot assume that I am the gold standard by which all Christians should be judged. I am imperfect. And while my mind is becoming more the mind of Christ, I should not assume that I have all wisdom and knowledge. I believe what I believe, but I must accept my brothers and sisters who have not yet come to same conclusion I have on Picket Fence issues.
The purpose of the Picket Fence concept is allow us to follow our convictions and believe what we believe without bringing under condemnation those who disagree.
Picket Fence Doctrine
So, what doctrines fall under the Picket Fence category? Any doctrine that does not compromise the fundamentals of the faith, but does affect the fellowship and functioning of the church is included. Picket Fence doctrines have two defining characteristics. First, they do not involve salvation or the basic truths of the faith. We cannot erect picket fences next to people who teach salvation by works or question the truth of God’s Word. That is Brick Wall time. But if we can disagree over something and still maintain our core belief in salvation by grace through faith, only a picket fence is required.
Second, the doctrine must affect the fellowship or functioning of the church in a systemic way. A church cannot be committed to both infant baptism and believer’s baptism. Some churches practice both, but only because their convictions on the subject are not particularly strong. A church cannot be both cessationist (tongues passed away in the 1st Century) and charismatic. So that we do not have to waste time fighting every issue to the mat, we separate into neighborhoods and houses with picket fences in between. We love one another, but live separately.
I have identified four general categories of Picket Fence doctrine. Of course, everyone will have a different idea about what category a particular doctrine or practice should be placed in. This is my categorization – currently. It changes a little from time to time. This is more art than science, I suppose.
Category 1: Church Organization and Denominational Convictions
What did the New Testament church look like and how should our churches be organized today? Should we baptize infants or only professing believers? Should a church have elders, deacons, or a ruling pastor, or some combination of these? Should denominational hierarchy rule a church, or should the elders, or is congregational rule correct? What roles should women play in the leadership of a church? Among those who love God’s Word and are devoted to the gospel, there are wide differences of opinion. So, we have a choice. We can spend the next century trying to hammer all this out to the satisfaction of everyone, or we can erect friendly picket fences and maintain fellowship in spite of our differences. We may not worship in the same house or in the same way, but we can be good neighbors in the City ofFaith.
I am Baptist by birth, but also by conviction. I believe the Bible teaches baptism by immersion of believers. But I can accept those who sprinkle babies and can partner with them in certain community ministries. But worshiping together in one church would be impractical. We would either have to hash out baptism until we come to an agreement or we would have to compromise doctrine we hold sincerely and passionately. So, the best solution is a picket fence. The Lutheran church (Missouri Synod) down the street can practice that which they believe but we can partner together in an Upward basketball ministry and bless one another. We won’t start churches together, but we can view each other as ministry partners and co-laborers for Christ. That is the essence of the Picket Fence.
Within Baptist circles, this concept of theological triage (Dr. Mohler’s similar and more widely known concept) has been criticized as a means to ecumenism, to the compromise of dearly held Baptist doctrine. That is simply not the case. In Mohler’s triage – more focused on the Baptist world – the first level (what I call Brick Wall doctrine) is that which is necessary to the Christian faith. Secondary doctrine (similar to my Picket Fence doctrine) is Baptist doctrine, that which is necessary to be a Baptist.
We are not saying that Picket fence doctrine is unimportant, we are just saying that one can be a faithful, God-loving, Christ-honoring, World-obeying Christian and disagree on these doctrines.
Denominations are not evil unless we allow them to be. They allow us to pursue truth and practice our dearly held convictions without disrespecting our brothers and sisters who see things differently.
Category 2: Church Philosophy and Style
Why does the church exist and how is it supposed to operate in its community? Once, there may have been a general agreement about this, but the last few years have seen the development of a multitude of new philosophical approaches to “doing church.” There are seekers churches, emergent churches, “gen-x” churches, cowboy churches, and myriad other iterations. It can get very confusing. These different philosophies are more than semantic. They represent significantly different ways of approaching the work of the church.
I believe in “believer’s church.” The church exists to strengthen believers who then go out into the world and do the work of the ministry. This puts me in substantial difference with many churches in my denomination which have taken the evangelistic approach to church. In that approach, we invite our friends and neighbors to church where the pastor preaches a gospel sermon and seeks to lead them to Christ. Is the church supposed to be the place where evangelistic ministry takes place, or is it where Christians gather to be encouraged and strengthened to go out into the world and do evangelism?
I am not enamored with the Seeker church model of ministry, but I realize that Bill Hybels has brought multiple thousands to Christ using this approach. Almost every point of philosophy about the church promoted by Pastor Hybels – I disagree with! It is just not the church I see in the New Testament.
I am nearing my fiftieth birthday and have to admit that I do not understand a lot of the emphases of the emergent churches. Some of the emergent leaders have clearly abandoned sound doctrine and embraced heresy. They have placed themselves outside the Brick wall. But others have adopted “culturally relevant” practices (some of which make me very uncomfortable) which holding on to the biblical gospel. Not my cup o’ tea, but it seems to bless some folks.
So, what do we do about it? We erect a friendly picket fence. At my church, I preach the Word of God expositionally and try to train believers to do ministry in this world. We do things our way and we permit every other church in town to do things as it sees fit. We do not operate as a Seeker church, or an Emergent, but neither do we condemn them. I might identify from scripture why I disagree with the approach taken by some of these men, but I do not need to question their sincerity or denigrate their character on stylistic bases. We rejoice when God blesses them and fellowship with them. I do not have to convince them I am right and I do not have to be threatened by their approach.
I would like to address an issue here. One of the key “picket fence” issues of our time has become worship style. H.B. London has observed that music is the key issue for most people in choosing churches today. People do not choose churches based on denomination, or doctrine, or leadership style. They choose churches based on music. So, in reality, music is a picket fence issue. I am not listing it as such because I do not believe it should be. Our musical differences are not based in scriptural interpretation, but on personal preference. It is wrong for us to sanctify our personal preferences, and we should never divide over them. Where a spirit of true Christian love prevails, musical style will not be an issue that deserves even a picket fence division.
Unfortunately, musical style has become one of the most common Picket Fence issues. I do not believe it should be, but it is.
Category 3: Charismatic Practices
The question of tongues, healing and supernatural phenomena has been divisive within the church. The blame for the animosity can probably be equally divided between the opposing sides. Some who believe that tongues and the miraculous passed away have treated Pentecostals and charismatics like space aliens. Some who practice charismatic phenomena have acted as though those who do not are second-class Christians. We have both given ample reason for offense to the other side. And, to be frank, we are just different. Most charismatics find our worship dull and lifeless, and we find much of what goes on in charismatic churches strange and confusing. Evangelicals and charismatics are probably not going to come to unanimous opinions on these phenomena any time soon. So we have a choice. We can disdain each other, savage one another in words and erect walls of separation, or we can erect a small picket fence and maintain our fellowship.
I have been guilty of disparaging charismatics. I viewed their doctrines and practices as bizarre and suspect and wanted nothing to do with them. I have already recounted to you how God blessed my life as a result of friendships I formed with charismatic Christians. I haven’t changed any of my beliefs in the last couple of decades, but my attitude is completely different. I did not always agree with everything I heard, but I came to know these men – men who have a heart for Jesus, the same Jesus I serve. I do not have to be charismatic to accept charismatics as dear friends and brothers.
Category 4: Core Doctrinal Differences
Some doctrines affect the way we behave so deeply that they require picket fences. The most notable example of this is the question of God’s sovereignty in salvation, the debate between Calvinists and Arminians. This is one of the watershed doctrines that has divided the church throughout its history. Most of our denominational divisions trace back to it. Though I oppose Arminian doctrine, I know many who hold those views and have a passion for Christ equal or greater than my own. So what do we do? We stand at the picket fence and lovingly try to convince one another of our position. When the discussion is over, we shake hands and return to our homes where we worship with the folks who believe as we do.
Baptists are in a unique place here. We are generally on the Calvinist continuum, but at different places on that scale. Some hold only to depravity and eternal security. Others ascribe as well to the concept of God’s sovereign choice, and we have 5-point Calvinists among us as well, in growing numbers. It is still a point of debate as to whether we will be able to live together in the same denomination or if we will splinter into more and less Calvinistic fellowships. I believe that the disagreements among Baptists should not lead to division, but others are much more passionate and forceful in their convictions on this issue.
Picket Fence Perspectives
I hope the reader hears my heart on this one. I am not joining the “doctrine doesn’t matter” chorus. Doctrines do matter, they are crucial. Each of us must be diligent in seeking truth on all biblical issues. But we must also show humility. I must admit that it is possible for someone on the journey to having the mind of Christ to arrive at different positions on these issues than I do. If someone preaches universalism, I erect a brick wall. No fellowship. There can be no unity with wolves. But if someone disagrees with me on election or predestination, or on charismatic practices, or church organization, we can and must maintain a friendship over the picket fence.
Every Christian, every church, needs to make two solid commitments. First, we must be committed to the pursuit of truth through diligent study of God’s Word. Every doctrine matters. Does the Bible teach baptism by immersion of believers or sprinkling of children? What form of church government is closest to the New Testament ideal? What does the Bible say about tongues? We need to relentlessly pursue the real truth of scripture. Never abandon Bible Study because it makes unity harder.
Churches and denominations should believe what they believe and practice what they practice because of the Word of God, not because of tradition. This teaching is no excuse for people to get stuck in a rut and do things a certain way because “that’s the way we always did them.” Each denomination, each church, each individual should be constantly comparing our beliefs and practices against the Word to see what the Bible says.
But, while we pursue truth, we must also make a commitment to relentlessly pursue the unity of the body of Christ. I will not compromise my beliefs, but I will also not be a bad neighbor. Like Mr. Rodgers, I want every other resident to feel welcome in the neighborhood. We can pursue the truth in love and seek both doctrinal purity and the unity of believers.
One day, we will all agree on all things. Today is not that day. So, we hold firmly to Brick Wall truth and we follow our own convictions on Picket Fence issues, while maintaining friendly relationships with our neighbors in the Christian community.
Chris Roberts (63)
Dave Miller (61)
Bob Hadley (48)
Debbie Kaufman (45)
dr. james willingham (44)
Les (30)
cb scott (29)
Rick Patrick (27)
Bill Mac (26)
Christiane (26)
This is a long one, but I hope you will read and interact with it.
I’ll be clear: me disagreeing with you, not a sin.
You disagreeing with me: sin.
Actually, that type of thinking is usually the problem.
The problem with using the “sin” language of describing other views of baptism is where does that kind of division end? If it’s a fellowship-breaking sin to have a bad interpretation of baptism, then we could also call it sin to have a mistaken interpretation of eschatology and disassociate with any who differ from us on that as well. After all, we are supposed to “obey all that [Christ] command you”, including Jesus’ teaching on the proper way to view his return. That would also mean that Christians who hold different views than the “correct” one on issues like Calvinism or Lord’s Supper or pastor/elder issues would also have to be called out for being “in sin”. Essentially we would all have to be Independent Baptists at that point, and even then, there would have to be constant discipline of “unrepentant sinners” within our own churches for disagreeing with minor points of doctrine as well.
However, if we admit that disagreement over those issues does not mean that one is willingfully sinning, then I don’t know how that wouldn’t apply to our rhetoric towards those who practice baptism differently than we do.
That doesn’t mean we can practically do church together, but there are arenas such as service, evangelism, conferences, etc. where we could still work together.
I agree fully, Josh. I am a premil, pretrib, (mild) dispensationalists, which puts me in disagreement with most of the people here (except for those few and very wise folks!).
But must I say that amillennialists are “in sin”? I not only think that is unwarranted, but dangerous.
not only must you say they are “in sin” but based on the above quotes you critiqued, you must also disassociate from them in even the broadest points of cooperation.
of course, you’d be wrong to call them sinful, since they’re more right than you.
Liberal. Heretic.
When one considers that the Tribulation will consist of the Yankees winning the World Series all 7 years, I’m hoping for a pre-trib rapture myself.
I think you’ve got it backwards. The Millennium is when the Yanks win for 1000 straight years.
I thought the Millennium was good?
See, now I’m confused.
“mild” dispensationalist?
As opposed to the spicy kind? Who flavor tests?
To take baptism as an example, I think Scripture is abundantly clear that it refers to complete immersion and that the only Biblical examples are of people doing so as an example of their faith in Christ.
However, I cannot bring myself to decide that the church as a whole was completely sinful about this for the roughly 1400 years (probably 200-1600) that this was not only not normal, but hardly ever practiced. Throughout that time, the general consensus was different from mine. Even today, very committed, Bible-centered people reach a different conclusion than mine on that issue.
So, while I would not teach their view and will preach mine, I would hesitate to regard someone as sinful if that is the only disagreement. What I do see, though, is that credo/paedo on Baptism is often the visible sign of difference, but the core issues end up much deeper, such as the relationship between tradition and Scripture and authority in the church.
Of course, I still I’m right and the Presbyterians are wrong, but I can see where they get the idea.
To what extend does bad theology equate to sin? Different people have come up with different tiers of categories of doctrinal essentials, but I’m not so sure that bad theology on the non-essentials doesn’t still equate to sin on some level.
God gives us more than enough in scripture to get the core doctrines right. But He didn’t tell us everything, and I believe He has a good reason for withholding some information from us. While I don’t think ignorance justifies poor theology, you can’t repent of a sin you don’t know about and I think God is most gracious in this regard. But what is a worse sin than bad theology is not following God’s lead on extending grace to each other on non-essentials – especially where we may hold to dubious theological conclusions as doctrines ourselves.
As I said in the post and to Dr. Yarnell below, I think there might be two levels on which we are discussing sin.
We are all sinful and fall short of the glory of God – at all times. My mind is not yet completely captivated by Christ and is still subject to error. As much as I would like to believe that all my doctrine flows directly from God’s Word, I know that I still lack the mind of Christ. So, in that sense, disagreement is a result of our sinfulness.
But there is another usage of the term “sin” – as an act of willful disobedience against God and the Word. In my generally sinful and imperfect state, I am called to obey that which I believe to be the truth of God’s Word, even if that understanding is incomplete.
So, by the first definition, disagreement is a product of our general sinfulness and the lack of the mind of Christ.
By the second definition, if a person in their incomplete knowledge follows that which they know and believe, I have a hard time calling that willful sin.
That is where I diverge from Dr. Yarnell, as I understand it.
The key to all of life is to discover what God has to say in His Word, then believe! Faith is the key to salvation; lack of faith (and faithfulness) is the definition of sin. The point we probably agree on is that we allow disagreement with one another. But, with all due respect, I must disagree with your denial that “theological disagreement is inherently sinful.” I may never deny what God has revealed, including matters of theology and ethics, even when this brings disagreement with a brother in Christ. Thank you for the interaction, Dave.
I would distinguish between a general sinful condition and a specific sin.
It is because of our general sinful condition that we do not have full understanding. So, in that sense, it is because of sin that we have disagreements.
But the more common usage of sin is as an act of disobedience. A Presbyterian who (albeit mistakenly) believes in paedobaptism is following his conviction of the Word’s teaching. I would not call that willful sin or disobedience.
The distinction I would make is between wrong belief and wrong practice. I do not think it is sin to have a wrong belief (though wrong belief could be sin if a person is willfully resisting true teaching, as is the case with LSU fans). Wrong practice is a different matter. If what I do violates or fails to fulfill one of the commands of God, then I have sinned. Thus the sin of paedobaptists is not that they believe the Bible teaches we are to baptize infants but that they fail to baptize believers as instructed in Scripture.
Disobedience through wilfulness or ignorance is, nonetheless, sin. As for what is in the heart of a disobedient Christian, that is for the Lord to judge. My responsibility is always to return mysekf and others to His Word. Blessings. Really must go now. Weekend is upon us!
Have a good weekend.
And I hope that you feel that I fairly represented your position. I know I’m a minor leaguer trying to hit a CC Sabathia fastball when I’m debating with you, so I appreciate you stopping by.
It’s interesting how blogging evolves. About 3 or 4 years ago, this was the dominant discussion in blogdom – this topic would have blown up like an M-80 on July 4th.
Now, its sort of an also-ran.
Ah, DAVID, it’s been around for a few millenia, at least among Christian people.
In ‘older’ times, it was thought (and still is by many) that there were ‘laws’ God wrote on the hearts of all human kind. These laws made up what is called the ‘natural moral law’, and universally (sorry for term) it is KNOWN by all humans in all cultures, this precept:
that good is to be done, and evil avoided
Having learned the difference between ‘good’ and ‘evil’, humans were then given ‘choice’, but were cautioned to ‘choose life’, to choose the good.
The moral and ethical precept that ‘good is to be done and evil avoided’ is the basis for many laws in many cultures in this world. This is the result of the ‘natural law’, not of supernatural revelation. That was more specific and fine-tuned, especially by Our Lord, when He gave the Great Commandment.
Do people know when they have violated the ‘natural law of God’?
Yes, if their conscience is functioning, they do have an awareness. The conscience can be a barrier against evil, if it guides a person to do the right, and if their choice is to obey their conscience.
Interesting post, David.
Lots of food for thought.
You should have used home schooling, Calvinism, alcohol, or Mark Driscoll as the illustration. Would have gotten nineteen-gazillion hits.
Dave (or others),
Do you consider the issue of women in the pastorate as being a picket-fence issue? If so, is it different in character from differing views on baptism? I just want to see how you see it.
Yes, I would say that women in ministry falls in this category. A church either has women in ministry or does not. I certainly do not think it is a Brick Wall issue.
I see it as more of a brick wall issue. Some of this is certainly subjective, but it requires quite a bit more convolution of Scripture to defend the ordination of women than it does to argue for the baptism of babies. I can understand the paedobaptism argument, even though I think it is wrong. But the only way to argue for the ordination of women is to completely ignore some fairly significant portions of the Bible. There is a reason why denominations that ordain women almost always dive deep into liberalism.
Chris: The way I understand Dave’s hierarchy, a brick wall is to separate Christian from non-Christian. Do you really think churches with female pastors are unsaved?
I know liberal churches ordain women, but many charismatic and holiness churches, many of who are far to the right of the SBC on some issues, also ordain women. I think they are wrong, but one cannot characterize them as liberal or, in my opinion, lost.
No, I don’t think this is a salvation issue. But as a matter of fellowship, I would have a much lower degree of fellowship with a church pastored by a woman than with a church that baptizes babies, something between brick wall and picket fence but closer to brick wall.
Interesting. Don’t you think the command to be baptized as a believer to be more important than gender issues?
I don’t know that I would call it more important. What I would say is the mistake necessary to misunderstand baptism is much less than the mistake necessary to misunderstand issues of men and women in the church. Paedobaptism involves a misunderstanding of Scripture. Ordaining women involves disregarding Scripture.
I see it as maybe like a picket fence that’s a little higher with more pickets. I mean, I wouldn’t cooperate with a church that had women in pastoral positions (*) but I can’t say they’ve denied the gospel. I wouldn’t plant churches with them or build seminaries but I wouldn’t want to hinder their work as long as they preached the gospel.
Somewhere back in this series I used the term, “privacy fence.” Those are groups we recognize as Christian but still are reluctant to have much fellowship with.
Forgot to add my asterisk above.
* Man, I wish the BFM 2000 would close that loop hole where it says “Senior Pastor” and therefore allows for a church with a female associate pastor to be considered a cooperating church.
What if one were to read “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” (1 Peter 2:38) and say that baptism is necessary for salvation? Would that be cause for that person to deny fellowship or cooperation with baptists, who agree we must repent, but don’t agree we must be baptized (except to join our “club”?
Tough question, but baptismal regeneration is seen by most, including me, as a denial of the gospel, of salvation by grace through faith.
If the man to whose eyes Jesus applied the mud had gone merely stopped by the roadside and washed out the mud in a stream, rather than walk all the way to the pool at Siloam, would his eyesight have been restored? I kind of think not, for willfully disobeying clear instructions.
Hmm … wonder if there’s an analogy lurking in there somewhere.
If you mean that being disobedient to be baptised means that they’re not really saved, then nope, there more certainly is not an analogy in there anywhere.
If you tell your son to mow the lawn but he sincerely believes you asked him to rake the lawn instead, he clearly has erred, but you don’t consider him willfully disobedient.
Luke 12:47-48 can factor in here. Two servants – one who knows what he should do and doesn’t obey; another who doesn’t know and doesn’t obey. Two things stand out in the passage. First, they are both punished for disobedience. Ignorance is not a justification for sin. Second, the degree of punishment was not the same. A distinction was made based on the nature of their disobedience. But even the disobedience from ignorance still received punishment as sin.
(Confession: I did not read the whole article.)
Just commenting on the top examples with Yarnell’s position on Baptism. In this case, I tend to agree with Yarnell, though my position on baptism and membership is not altogether far from Piper’s.
The issue on baptism is not whether or not someone disagree with me, but whether or not someone is failing to do something God tells us to do. As the Catechism says, sin is any want of conformity to, or transgression of, the law of God. Any failing to obey God’s commands. This means even if we don’t know we are disobeying, we are still disobeying. Presbyterians believe their practice of baptism is in complete conformity to the commands of Scripture. I understand that. But they are wrong, they are not conforming to the commands of Scripture. As such, they are failing to obey God’s command. What do we call that if not sin? Scripture does not give a gray area in which something is wrong but not sinful. It does speak of degrees of punishment for willful sin vs sin in ignorance.
At the same time, the Baptism issue is hardly on a level of many other sins, from our perspective, so on the point of unity and cooperation I would disagree with Yarnell. I believe Presbyterians are wrong, I believe they are failing to obey a command, so I believe they are committing a sin. But given the nature of the issue and the kind of misunderstanding leading them into that sin, I remain willing to cooperate fully with Presbyterian believers.
Chris,
I agree with you that solving the question of whether misunderstanding the command of baptism is sin or not does not totally solve the question of fellowship. But I do think it would add something of substance to this discussion if someone could provide a good biblical argument (not dissing the Catechism, but let’s stick to the Bible on this one) why misunderstanding a commandment should be considered as sin, or not. In the meantime, I will be giving it some more thought myself.
I’m not sure what the biblical argument would need to be except for a straightforward observation: God says do this, we don’t do this, we have disobeyed God. What is sin if not failing to do what God commands/doing what God forbids?
For biblical evidence that even ignorant disobedience is sin, see my comment above based on Luke 12:47-48.
Can we not make a distinction that I tried to articulate in the article (which at least you are honest about not reading all of)? We are all sinful and subject to deception and misunderstanding.
But that does not make a sin willful. Failure to study is willful sin. But acting on your understanding of God’s word, even if that understanding is in error, is not willful sin, is it?
That distinction seems valid to me.
It is a fair distinction to say this is not willful sin, but that doesn’t make it less a sin. Sin in ignorance is still sin. Again, Luke 12:47-48 makes this point for us. Presbyterians, in their faithful study of Scripture, nonetheless reach a wrong interpretation. Their wrong interpretation leads them to a wrong practice. They believe their practice is drawn from Scripture. They believe they are acting in obedience. But, whatever they may believe, their action is sin because they are still failing to do what God commands. I am willing to cut them a lot of slack on the baptism issue, but I still want to call their action for what it is.
I think we may be using slightly different phrasing to say pretty much the same thing.
…except I’m willing to say that Presbyterians are guilty of sin for which they are culpable, and you are not?
By the way, the link I gave above to David’s interaction with Dr. Yarnell is not only a good debate, but a good model of productive and godly disagreement and discussion. Worth reading, folks.
I think the question is not whether it is a sin to disagree, but rather is it a sin to make a mistake, to be wrong?
Let’s face it: Dispensationalists and Amillenialists cannot both be correct. Is the group that is wrong sinning by being wrong? You may say that Baptism is a more important issue than eschatology and I agree, but I don’t think that changes the fundamental question. Is it a sin to misinterpret scripture?
Disagreement is of itself is not a sin.
It is what we’re disagreeing over that may or may not be a sin issue.
Is it a sin to ‘disagree’ ? No
What’s missing from the understanding of how two people CAN see the same thing and not see it the same way is that PERHAPS they were meant to it through their own eyes . . . and to share what they saw with others;
and to discover from others what it is that they, through THEIR own eyes have come to know.
A lot of times we hear people describe this as ‘everyone has a piece of the puzzle’ and even that doesn’t quite capture the importance of each individual’s gift of insight which can be shared to increase the understanding of the whole community.
We want to think that ‘our’ gift of insight is the only valid one and everyone else’s is not acceptable, but that is our pride speaking.
Christians are a ‘listening’ people. We are a compassionate people. Our strength is not found in our earthly wisdom, but it comes to us directly from Christ Himself, the Eternal Word.
If we fail to understand everything now, maybe we can see that is as it should be for now, and continue our journey ‘into Christ’, the only center we have as Christian people, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
DAVID has written some wise words, here:
“We are all in a process of being conformed to the image of Christ and having our minds reprogrammed to exhibit the mind of Christ. In the meantime, we are not all going to be at the same place spiritually or theologically.”
I have read these words again, and I have seen in them some truth.
I hope you all will, also.
The difference here, Christiane, is that we believe that the Bible is authoritative over the human mind. We are, in fact, responsible to obey the Word of God and cannot just follow our own desires or ideas.
There is a perfect truth that each of us must conform our minds to. I’m not advocating an “everyone has their own belief” idea. I am saying that while our sinful human minds are being conformed to the perfect mind of Christ, we need to be accepting of others on that journey.
Its not that everyone has their own truth, its just that we are starting in different places and moving at different paces as we are conformed to the image of Christ and the mind of Christ more and more becomes ours.
I’m not sure you get that.
The only people who have a “piece of the puzzle” are those who have repented of their sins and trusted Christ to save them. In your opinion, people of other faiths (muslims, hindus, etc) have a piece of the puzzle. Of course, Christians realize they don’t.
I was once pretty much a cessationist, disdaining all charismatic practice and looking down on charismatics to boot. When, based on my study of scripture, I realized that cessationism is not taught in scripture, I was repentant for my disdainful and exclusivistic (yes, sinful) attitude toward my brothers and sisters in Christ.
But I never repented of my incomplete understanding. I believed what I had been taught and led to believe was biblically correct. When I studied the Bible and found cessationism to lack biblical support, I was thankful that I saw God’s word more clearly. Bu I did not repent of my previous views, which I held on the basis of what I was taught and thought were correct.
Should I “repent” every time I gain a new understanding of scripture?
Should I “repent” every time I gain a new understanding of scripture?
No, DAVID, you should give thanks instead.
DAVID, here is a prayer that is said before reading in sacred Scripture by some Christian people.
“Lead us toward an encounter with You
each time we read in Holy Scripture.
For Your Presence, Your power,
and Your glory
are ever present among us
now and forever.
From the ages to the ages,
Amen “
Since my last comment, I have done a little Bible study on the concept of sin and ignorance, or misinterpretation, of God’s commands. I thought about posting the all the text of all the relevant Scripture passages I found, but, since it would make for a very long comment, I decided just to post the references. I know this means less people will actually read the passages, but I would love it if some of you who read this would actually read through these passages and help me (and the rest of us) think through the implications. Personally, I am still unsure how to interpret each of these passages in light of the question at hand. But I think most (if not all) of them are relevant to the question at hand, and are a good place to start.
Romans 1:18-20; 2:6-8, 12, 14-16, 25-29; 3:19-20; 4:15; 5:20-21; 6:17-18; 7:7-13; 14:22-23; 1 John 3:6, 9
Most of these are from Romans, which seems to be the central NT source of verses on sin. If any of you have other passages you feel are relevant, I would love to add them to the list.
I am thinking one key to finding the answer to this question is a foundational study of hamartiology. When I googled harmartiology, I found a fairly good article at http://bible.org/seriespage/anthropology-hamartiology-man-and-sin containing the following paragraph:
“Many theologians rightly define sin as any want of conformity—in nature, disposition, or act—to the moral law of God. Again, this is an accurate definition as far as it goes (cf. 1 John 3:4), and perhaps better than referring to sin as experiencing personal finiteness, existential angst, desire to control others, selfishness, or sexual immorality. The one shortcoming, however, is that it does not really capture the heinous, aggressive, and vile nature of sin as such. Biblically portrayed, sin is more than a “want of conformity.” Sin is “out and out” rebellion, an insidious plot to personally subdue God and his just rule over our lives. It is a foolish attempt at a coup d’tat [sic]—an attempt to extinguish not only His commands to duty, and his wise prohibitions, but also to nullify his presence and to extinguish knowledge of him—and all this with each and every blow.”
If I am understanding this correctly, it would be hard to classify a sincere paedobaptist’s approach to baptism as “‘out and out’ rebellion, an insidious plot to personally subdue God and his just rule over our lives.”
Also, 1 John 3:6 says, “No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.”
If I am reading this correctly, it seems to imply that if the unbaptized paedobaptist is living in unrepentant sin, that means that no unbaptized paedobaptists are truly born again.
Perhaps someone else has a different explanation, though. If so, I would be happy to hear it.
David,
What did you think of the Luke passage?
Chris,
Yes, I agree that Luke 12:47-48 should be included in the list of relevant passages, as well, and that it does seem to teach accountability for ignorant disobedience to God’s commands.
I am not sure I understand all of the Romans passages, but some of them, on a surface reading, seem to teach something else.
I am still open to being convinced regarding the overall force of Scripture on this question.
Not sure what else you see in those passages, though there is the implication that no one is truly innocent, the truth has been revealed to all so there is no genuinely ignorant sin. But there is still a difference in a person who knows God’s Word says do this but they do that, and the person who does not know the Bible says do this.
I’m not sure what you have in mind for many of those verses. They describe the nature and reality of sin and do so in ways that fit well with the catechism description of sin as any want (lack) of conformity to God’s law. Keep in mind that most catechism answers are not comprehensive statements. The answer does not say everything there is to say about sin. But it does capture the primary point – sin is what we do whenever we disobey one of God’s commands. Most of the verses you note support that description.
As for 1 John 3:6, John’s point is not that believers never sin but that believers do not go on living a life characterized by sin. This is the work of sanctification – to make us more like Christ. But it is a work that will not be complete until the day of Christ (Philippians 1:6). Presbyterians may be sinning in this area, but that does not mean they are living lives whose dominant characteristic is sin. We all – every one of us – sin. John makes that point as well (1 Jn 1:10). And yet we are still saved by the blood of Christ. Just so with Presbyterians. They sin by failing to obey Jesus’ command to be baptized, but that sin does not put them into the category of keeping on in a life characterized by sin and disobedience.
Chris,
Thanks for your interaction on this. It is helping me to think through better what I believe.
First off, regarding 1 Jn 3:6 & 9, it seems to me that if not being baptized as a believer is sin, even though one is convinced that Scripture teaches infant baptism, the one who continues in an unbaptized state is not just committing a sin, for which he/she subsequently repents, asks forgiveness, and is restored to fellowship with God, but is rather living in a continual state of unrepentant sin. I agree with you that John’s point is “not that believers never sin but that believers do not go on living a life characterized by sin.” However, I think it is artificial to distinguish between those who “are living lives whose dominant characteristic is sin” and those who are not. I don’t think you mean to imply this, but it seems that what you say implies “living a life characterized by sin” can be defined on a spectrum from 1 to 10. Those who are only sort of living a life characterized by sin may be okay, but those who are really (in a dominant sort of way–8, 9, or 10 on the spectrum) living a life characterized by sin are not okay.
Regarding the Romans passages, in order to keep this from bogging down too much, maybe it is best to take them one by one.
First, Romans 1:18-20 seems to imply to me that ungodliness and unrighteousness are related to intentionally “suppressing the truth.” The reason unbelievers are “without excuse” is because they have rejected those things that are “plain to them,” that God “has shown [to] them,” and “which have been clearly perceived.”
While I’m at it, I’ll go ahead and throw in my comment on Rom 2:6-8 as well. It seems to me, according to this passage, that “not obeying the truth” is linked to “obeying unrighteousness” and to “self-seeking.” That leads me to ask, is the sincere paedobaptist really “obeying unrighteousness” and is he/she truly “self-seeking” in his/her motivation for holding the view he/she holds? If not, might this mean there is a difference between being mistaken about the truth and “not obeying the truth”?
“I think it is artificial to distinguish between those who “are living lives whose dominant characteristic is sin” and those who are not.”
I think it’s a fair distinction and it seems to get at the point of those verses from 1 John. Some use 1 John as a way to argue that believers ought to be sinless. If that is not what John is saying, then he must be saying something more about the degree to which sin takes hold in our lives. The unbelieving life is characterized by sin. The believing life is characterized not by sinlessness, but by a growth in righteousness. Sin is never rooted out fully this side of the cross. If it is possible for a believer to continue sinning then it is possible for a believer to continue lifelong in one particular sin and still be a believer.
We all have to pray with David in Psalm 19:12, “Declare me innocent of hidden faults.” We all are guilty of sins we don’t even know we’ve committed. Just so with Presbyterians who do not know their disobedience in this area. They *should* know because of the revelation of Scripture and the work of the Spirit – their sin is not because God has failed to tell them what they should be doing – but for various reasons, they do not know this is sin so they continue in it.
(As an aside, I’m at times curious about the nature of guilt. In what sense does sin “accrue”. If we are judged for every action, as something like 2 Cor 5:10 says, then how are certain sins judged? Jesus says that a man who divorces his wife and marries another woman is guilty of adultery. Yet we would not tell that man that he should then divorce his second wife in order to get out of a condition of adultery. So is the sin “counted” against him only once, or is it sort of an increasing measure of sin? In the case of baptism, if I’m right that this is sin, would it be a one-time sin of failing to have the one-time baptism or is it an increasing measure of sin for continually failing to be baptized? Though I’ll note that it doesn’t do to speculate too much on this – God is judge, he will do what is right, that is enough.)
I’ll say a word on Romans 1:18-20 in another comment.
Chris,
I believe, as Christians, we should live in a state of continual repentance. As soon as the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin in our lives, we have the responsibility, before God, to confess our sin, repent of our sin, and purpose to live, from that point on, free from that sin. That doesn’t mean we can achieve sinless perfection, but we can reach, whenever we bare our hearts before God and purpose to submit fully to him, a sense of spiritual liberty in our walk with the Lord, that, if not exactly synonomous, at least coincides with the walking in the Spirit, and with what the Bible calls, in certain places, “blamelessness.” While it is true, to some degree, that none of us is ever completely free of “hidden faults,” we can at least reach a point when our conscience does not accuse of any known sin.
The difference I see between the divorced and remarried person, and the paedobaptist, is that the divorced and remarried person cannot rectify their situation without committing a further sin, while the paedobaptist merely needs to submit to believers baptism.
The problem for many paedobaptists is that to submit to believers baptism would represent for them a renunciation of their infant baptism, and thus a sin against their understanding of biblical teaching and against their own conscience.
Romans 1:18-20 is where I point any time someone asks me, “What about the person in the middle of Africa who has never heard of God’s commands? How can he be guilty of sin?” These verses show that God has revealed himself to everyone. Furthermore, I think 2:16 points to the fact that God has not just revealed himself, he has created us in such a way that he has also revealed his commands. We have an innate sense of what God expects of us. I would not argue that all truth is written on the hearts of men and we just have to remember it in some Platonic sense. I think these verses are talking about God’s moral law, his commands that we worship him only and treat one another well (a very inadequate summary, but trying to keep it brief). It would not include more ritual aspects of God’s commands. Pagans in the OT would not be expected to have an innate knowledge of the sacrifice God required at his tabernacle or temple. Those without the Bible today would not be expected to know about baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But God has revealed enough in creation and on the hearts of man to make it possible, in one sense, for us to live sinless lives.
Before anyone accuses me of Pelagianism, let me explain.
No one can be sinless. But that is not because God has failed to tell us what is necessary for a sinless life. In Romans, Paul is building the case for grace. He begins in chapters 1-2 by demonstrating that God has made his commands known to everyone. No one can claim ignorance in the sense that God has failed to tell him what to do with regards to his moral law. God has told us what he expects of his creation and we are responsible for our obedience. If we would perfectly obey what God has revealed, then we would be sinless. In that case, ritual aspects of the law would not even be necessary. Baptism is an act for those who have received the new birth. The Lord’s supper is an act for those who have received the salvific benefits of Christ’s death.
So in Romans 1-2, Paul is telling us that God has created us with the moral knowledge necessary for us to live a sinless, perfect life. Thus we are told that people are judged on the basis of the law, God’s commandments. If a person does not break any of those laws, then he will not be guilty of anything. Thus Romans 2:6-11 mentions a salvation based on works. If a person does good, is obedient, lives for God, he will receive eternal life.
The problem sets in with chapter 3 because there Paul reveals that there is no one who obeys God’s moral law. No one does good. No one seeks God. Everyone is a violator of the moral law. If that were the end of the story then we would be in trouble because of Romans 2:6-11. We are all workers of iniquity and as such deserve the wrath and fury that Paul says will be ours. Fortunately (a massive understatement!), that is not the end of the story for God has revealed a righteousness apart from the law, a righteousness based on faith so that the righteousness of Christ can be credited (imputed) to us on the basis of our faith.
Jumping ahead to chapter 6, Paul shows us that a change takes place in the life of the believer. God kills sin in us and we should not continue in sin. In fact, Romans 6:4 is one of the best arguments in the Bible for believer’s baptism by immersion. It is a picture of our death to sin and life in God. But as we move on to Romans 7, we see the reality that even believers continue to sin. Some argue that Romans 7 refers to pre-Christian Paul, but I think Paul is relating his very real struggles with sin as a believer. Despite the new birth, despite the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, believers do continue to wrestle with sin. Bringing in Psalm 19:12 and Luke 12:47-48, I think it is possible for believers to sin in ignorance – that is, we are ignorant of the fact that a particular action is sinful. Our ignorance is not because God has failed to reveal, but because we have failed to comprehend.
All that to say, I still think it possible for a believer to struggle with a particular sin – perhaps not even realizing that it is sin – and yet still live on the whole a faithful life. This would not be the case for any given sin. I don’t think it is possible to long be ignorant of God’s commands regarding sexual purity, for instance, so the person who continues in sexual immorality is not guilty of unknown sin but open rebellion. But in the case of baptism, I think it is possible.
I hope I’ve not gotten too convoluted and off track with this comment. I love Romans 1-3 and its picture of God’s righteousness, human sin, and God’s mercy. I tend to get a little carried away when I start talking about it.
Chris,
In general, I agree with your exegesis of Romans 1-3 here. I guess my main area of doubt centers around what I say in comment 72 about whether sin is essentially a matter of the heart or of external actions. If it is essentially a matter of the heart, then sinful actions always root from a sinful or rebellious heart toward God. If it is a matter of external actions, it may be possible to have a submissive heart, yet still live with sinful actions. As I understand it, it is a matter of the heart.
A number of the passages I reference from Romans have to do with the knowledge (or lack thereof) of the law, and the corresponding sin and guilt before God that comes as a result. In Romans 2:14-16 (if I understand correctly), Paul says that the Gentiles, though ignorant of the law, were still responsible to obey the dictates of their conscience. As Christians it seems to me, with the help of the Holy Spirit, a renewed conscience, and our best, honest effort to understand God’s revelation, we are also responsible to obey the dictates of our conscience. I think this is part of what it means to not be under the law, but rather to walk in the Spirit. All of this, as I understand it, is merely another way of saying that, for the regenerate believer, sin is essentially a matter of the heart, and of walking or not walking in the Spirit. If our heart is right before God, and we are walking in the Spirit, we may still be wrong or mistaken about this or that, but we don’t need to go around with a burden of condemnation. Indeed, our heart does not condemn us, because our sins are covered in the blood, and we are consciously submitted to the lordship of the Spirit (2 Co 3:17).
“Paul says that the Gentiles, though ignorant of the law, were still responsible to obey the dictates of their conscience.”
Speaking briefly and I may not make sense, I’m taking a break from mowing in this 100 degree heat. If I start speaking in tongues, blame it on heat stroke.
As for your statement above, this is partly correct. They were ignorant of the law as law but they still had the law written on their conscience. Paul’s point is they have the law even if they have not received the Mosaic law. Thus they remain responsible to obey the law since God had given it to them, even if they didn’t realize that’s what they had. All people are responsible because God had revealed the same moral code to all people.
I believe, in the case of Presbyterians, that they do need to act according to conscience. If they were fully convinced of infant baptism yet neglected it in favor of believer’s baptism, I think they would still be sinning. Doing the right thing isn’t enough if one is still acting against one’s conscience.
(A note on conscience – there is a difference between what God writes on our conscience and what we later do with our conscience. With all do respect to Jiminy Cricket, the conscience is not an infallible guide. Paul can speak of those whose consciences are seared.)
Presbyterians are acting according to their conscience, yet they are still walking in disobedience. They are sinning. A homosexual might be fully convinced that his behavior is acceptable to God, but his clear conscience has been seared and led him astray – his behavior is not acceptable. Now, the nature of their mistake is quite different, but the same principle applies as far as their sinfulness.
And this last point highlights my concern with saying, “They are doing the wrong thing, but it is not sin because they truly believe this is what Scripture teaches.” That makes morality subjective. This observation is worth its own comment so I may say more on it if I don’t die when finishing my yard.
Chris,
All very good points and interesting observations. I don’t think the example of homosexuals with a seared conscience is quite the same as Presbyterians who are convinced that the Bible teaches infant baptism, though (and from what I gather, I don’t think you do either).
I look forward to seeing any other insights you have regarding this.
As an observer, its been a good interaction between you guys. Instructive.
Dave,
While very appreciative of Chris’s contribution so far, and looking forward to hearing more from him, i am also hoping others will interact with my (our) observations.
I think it is a discussion worth having. We may be the biggest of the non-Catholic denominations, but we are only a small part of the Christian world. How we relate to that world is something that matters.
By the way, when I use the phrase “unbaptized paedobaptist” in the comment above, I am referring to paedobaptists who have not submitted to believers baptism, not to those who have never experienced infant baptism.
Hi all,
I’ve been reading this thread with interest. It has been a good discussion.
I am very hesitant to call a difference of interpretation where true believers in Jesus have historically disagreed a sin one way or the other. Accusing the “other side” of “sin” in such a dispute is harmful in at least three ways.
First, we forget that we too see through a glass darkly. Until we have come into perfect knowledge, I think it may be a bit presumptuous to accuse folks who are otherwise faithful followers of Jesus that they are sinning in their disagreement with us. I am sure we have practices that are not completely in line with the perfect will of God, and it would be best for us to do something about that beam in our eye first. While I wholeheartedly agree that the Word of God is infallible, our interpretation thereof is not. I am doubly wary when such a large segment of the Christian world disagrees with me on an issue. I may still believe I have the interpretive “high ground,” but I am still cautious about demeaning my fellow believers.
Second, I think it is unnecessarily divisive. Saying another is sinning is harsh. Remember, the “other side” could lash out with its own accusations of sin too. Then, we have a needless divide on our hands. Some hills aren’t worth dying on, and when you fire a shot, the other side can shoot back with live ammo too. We seem to agree in the baptism example that we can still fellowship with faithful paedobaptists at some meaningful level, so let’s do that without saying they are sinning.
Third, if word ever gets out of the “house” about accusations of sin within the larger context of the body over interpretive differences, we are damaging our credibility to the onlooking world. People already have the (mis)conception that we evangelical Protestants are a narrow, mean-spirited bunch, and starting accusing our fellow believers of sin over interpretive differences will cause more harm than good in the long run.
Now, that is not to say that all interpretive differences are created equal. I affirm Dave’s distinction of brick wall and picket fence. I just think hurling accusations of sin over the fence in this instance makes for being a bad neighbor.
Jim G.
Jim,
I agree in part, though as I’ve made clear, I do think it is fair to refer to such behavior as sin. I don’t know what else to call it when a person fails to do what God has commanded.
On the other hand, I consider this an entirely different class of sin than, say, murder, lying, sexual immorality, etc. I grew up Presbyterian, my family remains Presbyterian, and I have a deep love for the Presbyterian church. I think the SBC has much to learn from the PCA. So I do not think the issue of baptism is one that drives a deep wedge between us.
Hi Chris,
I think you are correct in saying that open rejection of the commandments (the ones you listed plus more) is sin. And it is different than disagreements arising from interpretation.
While I see your point about saying the baptism issue (for example) is sin, I think saying it out loud (for reasons I outline above) may not be completely wise. But I do see what you are saying.
Jim G.
Chris,
My working thesis is that sinful acts are those acts that stem from a heart of rebellion toward God. That would leave mistaken actions taken by those who are truly seeking in their heart to submit to God as outside the bounds of sin.
It would help me if you (or anyone else) can show me how this definition of sinful acts is biblically incorrect.
The Bible distinguishes between willful, defiant sins and unintentional sins of ignorance:
Willful, defiant sins: Hebrews 10:26, Numbers 15:30-31
Unintentional sins of ignorance: Hebrews 9:6-7, Numbers 15:28, 1 Timothy 1:13, Acts 3:17, Luke 23:34
Mike,
Thank you. That is a very helpful list of Scripture references.
It is indeed evident that biblically the difference you propose does exist between willful, defiant sins, and unintentional sins of ignorance.
The verses you cite also seem to indicate that God deals differently with these different types of sin. The question that comes to my mind is, does that indicate that we, as Christians, should also deal differently with different types of sin, when church discipline is involved?
In the meantime, I am still trying to get my mind around the implications of the entire context of Hebrews 9 and similar passages related to this. It seems to me that there is a difference between the way sin was considered and dealt with under the old covenant, and the way it is considered and dealt with under the new. Sin, under the old covenant, it appears, had to do with “external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (v. 10). Sin, under the new covenant, however, has to do with the unclear conscience of the worshiper (v. 9, 14).
Any additional thoughts on this?
Jesus said that ignorance is not an excuse for unbelievers in the parable in Luke 12:47-48. The apostle Paul spoke of his struggle with unintentional sin and his flesh in Romans 7:14-25. He mentioned not understanding sin in 7:15: “For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.” Marvin Vincent commented, “Paul says: ‘What I carry out I do not recognize in its true nature, as a slave who ignorantly performs his master’s behest without knowing its tendency or result.’” Likewise, A. T. Robertson commented on the verse: “‘I do not recognize’ in its true nature.”
Everyone be sure to wish David Rogers a happy birthday!
If we sing, do we have to pay royalties?
Happy Birthday to you.
Happy Birthday to you.
Happy Birthday dear David.
Happy Birthday to you.
And many more !!!!!!!!
A more serious note: David has been my blogging hero for 5 years. He has the knack for disagreeing with grace and discussing biblical texts and theology in a reasoned fashioned. When I describe what I think blogging should be, I’m usually trying to describe the way David Rogers does it.
First, I want to share an old post that may apply here in the context of intra-denominational cooperation. I wrote John 3:16 Conference, Together for the Gospel and Poor Arguments in response to the type of “ecclesial coalition” objection noted above.
Second, I would like to point something out which doesn’t answer the question, but does put the question in a new light. If we are to say from the Baptist perspective that paedo-baptists are living in sin due to their baptism practice; then, we might also be willing to accept that we Baptists may be living in sin if we are wrong.
Just thinking out loud.
That makes sense to me, Mark.
I think we had better leave the “disagreement over baptism as sin” idea alone. It’s a can of worms we definitely do not want to open.
Jim G.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }