Absolutely! If we must cleanse ourselves of sin before being permitted to accept God’s grace, then why would we need the grace anyway?

I’m struggling more with Michael’s assertion that there are degrees of sin. I suppose I never explored this portion of my Baptist upbringing, but I cannot agree with Michael’s reasoning that our awareness/perception of sin is any reliable measure of sin.

My childhood church leaders taught that stealing a dime is every bit as sinful as stealing a dollar, but I haven’t found any basis in scripture for that idea, either. Typically, I break this conundrum by telling myself that exploring possible degrees of sin is dwelling on the darkness rather than the light. If I am separated from God’s presence and influence, does it really matter by what distance?

Read this separate blog that addresses the question if all sin is equal in God’s eyes.

Bob
Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Bob Pratico
Fides Quaerens Intellectum
(my Sojourn blog)

That’s the post I meant when I said I can’t agree with his reasoning. He wrote, “However, if all sin is equal in the sight of God and one lived according to that theology, he or she should be just as troubled and just as repentant each time…”

I just don’t buy that idea, which expects conscience to weigh us down in proportion to the gravity of sin. Sure, his argument’s qualified by “and lived according to that theology,” but that’s an imaginative leap as well – my conscience has no theology, no more than my eyes or ears have.

If I can hold for a moment the question of whether one sin is greater than another and ask, How should we respond to that knowledge? Would I respond any differently if there are degrees of sin? Should I?

I think you may be mixing two issues:

1) The fact that any sin, small or large, is sufficient to alienate us from God. One sin of any kind brings us into an unjustified standing before God

2) The teaching in Scripture that not all sins are equal in the eyes of God. (I think the link presents the scriptural argument pretty well.) This is a separate issue from #1.

It’s the failure of many to grasp #2 that leads to some real problems. For example a very common objection from unbelievers is that somone who has not repented in Christ is going to hell “like Hilter?”, just because they may have sinned by not paying taxes, telling “white lies”, etc. (You mean if I don’t repent that I’m going to be treated like Hilter? “What kind of justice is that?” they will argue.)

No - you won’t be treated like Hilter. Your unjustifed standing because of unrepentance before God will separate you from Him for eternity. But not all are punished equally. Convincing arguments can also be made from Scripture that there are degrees of punishment in Hell - which mirrors the teaching that not all sins are equal before God. i.e., the passages I referenced over on Michael’s blog ….

- Jesus informed the citizens of certain communities in Galilee that in the day of judgment, it would be “more tolerable” for certain people of the ancient world (e.g., Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom) than for them (Mt. 11:20-24; cf. 10:15) …. implying they had committed a more serious offense.
- Christ told about a certain master who took a trip. While he was away, his servants, who had been charged with various responsibilities, disobeyed him. When the Lord returned, and discovered that some had knowingly been disobedient, while others had disobeyed in ignorance, he punished them according to the level of their culpability (Lk. 12:47-48).
- The writer of the book of Hebrews declares that the one who tramples on the Son of God and who treats, as a common thing, the blood by which he was sanctified, will deserve a much “worse” punishment (Heb. 10:26-31) ….. implying a greater level of responsibility for those who live under the better covenant.

On the opposite side of the coin, Scripture also speaks of differing levels of reward in Heaven. But that’s another topic ….

Bob
Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Bob Pratico
Fides Quaerens Intellectum
(my Sojourn blog)

Thanks for the insight. I don’t have a solid opinion for issue #2. (I’ve got three decades of sin=sin momentum going here.) So instead, I question the materiality of it by examining issue #1: does the answer to #2 affect my response anyway?

Was Paul truly a Chief of Sinners? If so, did Hitler take that title? Was I not just as deserving of eternal separation from God? I’m not sure how to react to the idea that some sins are worse than others.

I truly appreciate your pointers to scripture. I haven’t dug into them yet, but the few I’ve previously read to justify one position or another on issue #2 seem to be in answer to religious laws of that time. Jesus’ answers were often given to an audience mired in the context of legalism. Are we not free from the old law?

Thanks, you’ve given me some solid ideas and scripture to consider.

Good questions and points, roderickm. 1 Tim 1:15 where Paul refers to himself as the foremost (chief) sinner is interesting. Keeping in mind that most scholars date this letter circa 62 AD, near the end of Paul’s life, it tells us much of his mindset in the twilight of his years. And I think his mindset mirrors mine.

The mistake we all make is to compare ourselves to others …. and it’s always easy to find someone worse than you. But the standard is not others. It’s Christ. Personally - the nearer I draw and more I come to know Christ - the more painfully obvious my sin becomes to me. The greater the light the clearer I see.

Keep Sojourning.

Bob
Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Bob Pratico
Fides Quaerens Intellectum
(my Sojourn blog)