- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (4/26)
- Next Post »Quote: Iain Murray on Unity
Is Error in Doctrine Always Sin?
- 04/26/07
- 59
It was at least six months ago that someone asked me a question I've thought a lot about since then. And yet, despite thinking about it a great deal, I haven't reached a really satisfactory conclusion. So I thought I would open discussion here and perhaps between the group of us we can reach some good conclusions (or conclusions that have been better than mine, at any rate).
The question was simply this: is error in doctrine always sin? It is obvious that a person who preaches that Jesus Christ was something other than divine is teaching a terrible and divisive heresy and that this error is sinful. A person who teaches that homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle that the Bible does not condemn is likewise teaching grievous error and error that can be easily proven from the Bible. But what happens when the error deals with issues of lesser consequence? What happens when one teacher preaches a sermon defending credobaptism while another preaches a sermon defending paedobaptism? Obviously one of the two men must be wrong. But is one of them being sinful in teaching what is wrong? I think also of an issue like eschatology where two very fine and godly men may have completely different understandings of the end times. When they teach their differing conclusions, is one of them being sinful?
While this may seem like a petty issue, I believe it matters as it will necessarily impact how we relate to fellow Christians who differ from us on secondary issues. If I feel that my friend is being sinful by teaching paedobaptism, I will want to work with him to correct this error. But if I believe that his belief in paedobaptism is something less than sin, I can appreciate his conviction while not feeling the need to bring correction.
There are three principles I've drawn up that seem to be relevant to this issue.
First, it is clear to me that, regardless of whether or not error in doctrine is always sin, error in doctrine is always a consequence of sin. It seems clear that when the Lord returns and we join Him in heaven, there will no longer be disagreements about doctrine. Disagreements about baptism, eschatology and other issues will be put away once and for all.
Second, there are other consequences of sin for which we are not judged. For example, the cold that has incapacitated my wife for the past few days is a consequence of sin but God does not hold her responsible for that cold or consider her morally culpable for it. If there was no sin in the world there would be no illness. The boy who is born with a mental disability suffers a lifelong consequence of sin, but not one for which God holds him culpable.
Third, God has given us a conscience, something that would not seem to be necessary if there were never times where we need to make a judgment call rather than relying on what we know to be perfectly clear. While I am convinced that the Bible is just as clear as it needs to be for us to understand it, human reasoning has been so incapacitated by our fall into sin that we make a mess of it, bringing confusion where there should be clarity. And it is here, on the issue of conscience, that I have paused the longest. The Bible tells us that we are to heed the conscience and that to violate it is to commit sin.
Of course our conscience is developed as we grow in godliness and as we learn to heed the Word of God. John MacArthur says "When we live in the Spirit, walk in the Spirit, and obey the Spirit, we can trust our conscience because it is under divine control. The Spirit’s perfect prompting will either commend or condemn what we are doing or are planning to do." But still, two men who have dedicated a lifetime to humbly studying the Scripture can arrive at radically different conclusions. And God tells both of these men to heed conscience. It seems to me that God, in His sovereignty, has decreed here that some of the consequences of sin must be settled by conscience and that He will not hold people accountable (or as accountable) for what they do based on a conscience that is fed by Scripture. One of Martin Luther's more famous sayings is “My conscience is captive to the Word of God.” That is something we are all to strive for and something the Bible commands. Is this not God's admission that there will be times that we disagree and times that we will have to heed conscience, even if we disagree?
But this is as far as I've been able to extend my thought on this one. I would tend towards saying that no sin is being committed when two pastors follow their conscience, one to baptizing infants (presuming that this is not a Catholic-style baptism for salvation) and another to baptizing only believers. But I'd be interested in your feedback.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (59)
Interesting question. Perhaps a tad legalistic, but something worth pondering. I think we should ask, does God hold us accountable for what we are ignorant of? For example, regardless of whether I know the speed limit or not, I am still issued a ticket if caught speeding even if ignorant of it. I do not think God works the same way except when the answer is clearly presented in Scripture. Of course the question then is where do you draw the line on what is clearly presented?
I'll be interested to read the comments.
There is definitely part of me that wants to say that of course clashing consciences in matters of interpretation are good-natured and maybe even healthy...There is another part of me that wants to say, "Yes it is sin! Sin has you in its clutches if you don't baptize your covenant children! You will be held accountable for this at the judgement and so sanctify your mind and get with the program while you still can!" Ok that was a little tongue in cheek... but still, if God has one idea in mind for a particular doctrine but a pastor teaches it wrongfully, is that not breaking the 9th commandment? Bearing false witness?
Isn't it really a heart issue?
I'm not sure error in doctrine is always a consequence of sin. I think very often it is, however I think in some areas of understanding someone might get it wrong not because of sin but simply because God has not revealed the truth to them. Think about the millions of details in the Bible that are not clear exactly what is being said, so one has to make a best guess, a studied educated guess maybe, but still a guess, to what it means. Is is sin that caused him to get it wrong? Or simply that God in His providence did not wish to reveal the truth to him in that matter.
As you read the Bible, by the grace of God your wisdom and knowledge grows and grows, and each time you read it you get something new. That is God revealing truth to you through His word. Sin isn't neccessarily blinding you to truth; it may be God has just not yet revealed it to you.
nicely put, Sean.
What happens, however, when you extend that reasoning to non-believers? Are they not sinning by their rebellion because God has not chosen to reveal himself to them?
I think we too often look at a person's life in terms of slices of time. We Christians need to relax that tendency and instead look at the whole of one's life.
No one here has perfect doctrine in every aspect of the faith. Some have come out of lifestyles best describes as hellish. That person's not going to be instantly sanctified. Their doctrine's going to have holes here and there.
Priscilla and Aquila noted a guy named Apollos preaching:
Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.---Acts 18:24-26
That last sentence is key. Apollos was certainly a bold and competent witness. He was accurate in his doctrine. But he wasn't accurate enough--he still had room to grow.
Luke didn't come out and say, "Now the wrath of God was kindled against Apollos because his doctrine wasn't perfect." Nor did he note that Priscilla and Aquila rebuked Apollos for whatever mistakes he made that led them to explainthings to him "more accurately." That's for good reason.
So I'm not sure I would frame this whole question under the "sin" banner. Even if we do, Christ covered that. We're all learning at the rate the Lord intends. I think that's one reason why we should lead with love first and operate in the way Priscilla and Aquila did. They saw Apollos's potential for the Kingdom rather than some of the things he didn't communicate perfectly. They were willing to draw alongside him and correct and teach lovingly, not with a self-righteous, harsh spirit. I also like that the Bible strongly implies that Priscilla and Aquila did this together. I think that's even more grace-filled. It shows the compassion of a couple united in ministry to others.
Anyway, I think this example says much about this issue, and I pray we all learn to live like Priscilla and Aquila when it comes to helping folks who don't get all the details perfectly.
>>I'm not sure error in doctrine is always a consequence of sin.
Good question. I haven't thought it through that much, so I have no big pronouncements to make on the issue.
It did make me think of Romans 1, though. It seems from that we can conclude that
1. People are held accountable for what they do know. The condemnation of the Gentiles is based on what they did have revealed to them, and not on what they didn't.
2. People have a lot more revealed to them than they think. We have the objective revelation of the scripture in addition to the revelation of nature. I'd think we are responsible to know whatever is revealed in that objective revelation, even if we, in our unglorified state, don't see it.
One final note:
Some respected scholars believe Apollos wrote Hebrews. If true, Priscilla and Aquila did a good job fixing up our man Apollos!
Certainly sin is very often the cause of someone not understanding truth.I do want to open the possibility to another cause though, simple ignorance. Ignorance of the truth that can only be taken away when God reveals truth.
I'll give you an example. The only person that was completely Holy and therefore the only one I can use as an example is Jesus Christ Himself. Imagine that he is still a young boy, 12 let's say. He reads a passage of scripture for the first time. Did He know what it meant the first time He read it? Possibly not. Simple ignorance of certain facts will keep Him from knowing the meaning. Let's say He read a word He had never even heard before and did not know the meaning. How would he know? Sure He was perfect and pure and righteous, yet as a boy He was still ignorant of many things. To overcome ignorance it takes study and time.
So I see ignorance as a possible reason that someone lacks understanding of the truth. Often times it is sin, but sometimes it is just ignorance.
This is a good topic to introduce. The original recorded instruction given to man is to live in perfect obedience and to not eat of the fruit of the tree. Eve understood all of this, and added her own wrinkle not to touch it either.
But her eyes were not opened at that point. Not until she ate of the fruit.
This should be a very good discussion indeed.
i have thought about this before, and i believe i have arrived at a similar conclusion. i think of romans 14 where paul says that "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." i believe john piper picked up on this theme when he was preaching through romans.
on the other hand, it's difficult to know where the line is between heresy and mere doctrinal difference, so here (like so many areas) is somewhere to be careful as well.
"I think he may have been referring to the ultimate root cause for all things negative, painful, and false within humanity; the fall. hence the line about a cold being a product of sin, not specifically his wife's sin, but the post-fall milieu we’re cursed to toil in."
Quite right. I mean that sin is the ultimate root cause of all theological disagreement, even if there is no particular sin in a person's life that is causing the sin.
interesting. legalistic? Consider: a young man is interested in marrying a young lady who has been divorced for what some would consider biblical reasons, i.e. divorce or desertion. Some (pick a well-known pastor whom you respect tremendously) would say this is perfectly acceptable, while others (pick another well-known pastor whom you have equal respect for) would say that all remarriage after divorce is adultery (See Matthew 10:3-9 vs. Luke 16:18). Two eminently Godly men reach very different positions on divorce, and if you (the young man interested in the young lady) get it wrong you are an adulterer. The point is not to bring up a specific issue, the point is, how do you decide what to do?
You read your Bible, do all of the work that you possibly can, study, pray, study, read your Bible more, pray more, come to a conclusion and-what do you do? You make the best decision that you can, a decision that you believe is Biblical, that you can ground specifically (not so and so believes this, but I have done the work and I believe this), making sure that your conscience is fully clear.
Supposing that you are wrong in marrying this young lady, does God then consider you an adulterer? As someone above said, "Isn't it a question of the heart?" If your conscience is clear with the marriage, and if it is Biblically supported (remember, we are not talking about an area where the Bible is crystal clear), then you trust that Christ's blood will cover any sin that you inadvertantly, unknowingly commit.
Cautions: guard against using this as an excuse for licentiousness or clearly unBiblical behavior, such as premarital sex because "it feels good and my conscience is clear." There is a difference between a clear conscience and a seared conscience.
Sorry about the length.dan
Funny how things turn out I spent a while yesterday writing an email on the same issue. I'll post it over there rather than take up room here!
http://three17.blogspot.com
Sorry it took me longer to get the article up than I intended - now posted.
Sean (#4) made some excellent points above. Interestingly enough, I was inclined to disagree with him before reading his comment and thinking about it.
Regarding the question raised by Blake(#5):What about non-believers? Are they not sinning by their rebellion because God has not chosen to reveal himself to them?
I think Romans 1:18-20 addresses this. It says that there is a certain amount of revelation that all men have of God, leaving them without excuse.
Regarding the question I have, namely: Is the lack of revelation caused by sin or a consequence of sin?
If we go back before man's sin, were all things revealed to Adam? It doesn't seem to be so, and I don't believe that sin is what kept that from happening. So I'm not sure about that.
I think in the end, we come back to the idea that sin is what God declares it be. By this I am not suggesting that He does so arbitrarily, but that He is not constrained by anything other than His own nature, it being inseparable from Him.
Lastly, I think perhaps we are talking about a hypothetical sin; one that has not or possibly will never occur.
Anyway, thanks for letting me ramble.Charles
Two other thoughts: Before we are saved, it is not our actions that make them sinful, but our inability to please God. (the plowing of the wicked is sin. Our righteousness are as filthy rags)Once we are saved, it is not our actions that make them holy, but that they are done in faith (Without faith, it is impossible to please God).
I'm not suggesting by any of this, that we can do anything and it becomes holy, but that it is not the action that justifies itself, but rather the work of Christ that does so.
Just some stuff to think about.
I think that, at least in part, I would have to agree with DLE in #6.
Errors in doctrine can be caused by many factors. It can be caused by the fact that we grew up with the doctrine we understand and our parents have followed it for their all of their lives. We, therefore, grow up with a huge blind spot. One that leaves us fearful of our parents, friends, ministers, or a myriad of other influences, reactions to a change in our beliefs. This is, of course, only one example of thousands. Is it our pride that we 'refuse' to be wrong, and correct our beliefs? Or do we rest comfortable because we neither challenge ourselves, nor place ourselves in a position to have our beliefs challenged, and possibly changed?In your original statement, you equated sin with disease, and anything that you consider a negative, yet I believe that Jesus would disagree with you. John 9:1-3 "As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His deciples asked him, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Neither this man nor his parents sinned, said Jesus, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life."You work under the supposition that sin is the culprit and discount that God can have "life' in motion, and things happening that are simply a part of that life. He said as much when he talked of the tower of Siloam falling on the eighteen men. Were they greater sinners for that calamity? No.
You place Adam as the method for sin entering the world. True, it was stated that way in the NT, yet no one takes into account that all Jewish writings place the man above the woman, no matter the situation. In actuality, Eve sinned first. This is an error in doctrinal teaching, yet one no one seems inclined to correct it?
Catholics sprinkle for baptism, yet the word is burial or immersion. Other teach it as a work, and not associated with salvation, when scripture states it is "for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit" As for works? No, merely obedience...as James tried so hard to say, there is no difference between works and faith; you cannot seperate them. All of these are easily seen in scripture, yet our adherence to various ones, may indeed be sin when we refuse to see or admit error. Would God hold us accountable? He said Himself, "He winked once at ignorance of His laws/word, but no more."
Yet, as was said by someone else, earlier, God looks at the totality of our lives, not necessarily specific incidents or errors. If we are earnestly seeking, I believe we will find, but we may not find it all, nor be correct in all our thinking. In the end, God alone must judge us based on our hearts and his infallible wisdom.
I've thought about this some. What I've thought, so far, is that if someone is seeking God for His truth and looking carefully to His word, it is a whole different thing than if someone has glibly (to use the term from your great article of a few days ago) taken the bit in his mouth, so to speak, and taken off with a view or doctrine that pleases his fancy, for whatever reason.
But only God knows in many cases whether someone's doctrinal error is due to their own sin...there could be a hidden stubbornness or arrogance in someone's heart. He will deal with them about that. So I would think that in the case of someone we know to be a godly, careful person who trembles at His word, we shouldn't look at them as sinning in their error.
Yet there are surely consequences to believing and teaching erroneous doctrine. John Macarthur was bold to bring it up at his conference, yet I think he's got it wrong in some of his views! But it seemed to stir up a lot of thinking and conversation that could be very good. May the Lord give us grace to speak the truth in love, and so grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, "from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love." Ephesians 4:15-16
I reckon it's worth putting sharply the point made by way of example in the beginning of paragraph two. "Doctrinal difference", "doctrinal error", and "heresy" need to be distinguished. Perhaps a Venn diagram would help at this point: anyone know how to draw one in a comment thread? :)
Perhaps once we have established that sin is pervasive, and that there are no perfect humans this side of glory (except one), Tim's form of the question ("is error in doctrine always sin?") is less pressing. Perhaps?
Another question: what are the chances of doctrinal difference (set aside any language of "error"!) leading to sin? Some unedifying spats littering church history have dishonoured the Creator and sullied the name of Jesus ... that is, have been sinful.
Has anyone used the word "humility" yet? Seems like it ought to come up somewhere in this discussion.
David Reimer
Amen David.
SteveE, Adam is correctly placed as the first sinner. In a timeliine framework, Eve did eat first, but Adam was the head of the family and it was his responsibility to maintain himself and his wife.
God named Adam. Adam named Eve. This implies a sense of responsibility that goes beyond a timeline.
I hope this helps!
I've got to agree with you on this one Tim.
1. original sin affects our minds, wills, emotions---> leads to fuzzy thinking at times. 2. The fuzzy think is not sin, but as a consequence of sin. BUT if a better/correct way is revealed by Spirit/Word and we then kick against that revelation - then it may become sin. (Don't teach salvation by works if you do then let you be anaethema.) 3. If we read and understand through our fallen gridwork/past teaching/church culture etc the bible and reach certain conclusions which do not go against the clear teaching of the gospel - ie they may be 'secondary' issues and it seems right to us, then really does God hold us accountable as heretics? No I would not believe so......................
I hold to calvinism - another holds to arminiansim ..... may God use us both in the furtherance of His kingdom with us tearing each other apart - as He truly does.I hold to believers baptism - another to paedo ...... may God bless us both - as He truly does.I hold to amillenialism - another to pre-mil....... may God bless us both - as he truly does.I hold to a new covenant theology - another to reformed .... may God bless us both - as He truly does.
What am I saying? Yes the church is divided over secondary issues. So be it - but God is sovereign....my resposnibility lies in not putting obstacles in front of my brethen in their pursuit of honoruing God and His glorious gospel of grace. (I lament recent conversations where some church leaders have labelled each other as heretics). May God give us grace to live lives worthy of the gospel where ever we find ourselves and if we are in error may He guide us into all truth by His word and Spirit.
Doug, I have to agree with you. In a forum like this, it is often times difficult to express every detail that might detract from the whole of a statement.I mentioned the Adam and Eve example because they were both given the command not to eat of the tree, and both were present with the serpent, both were punished according to their sin, and death entered the world at that point. Specifically Adam was punished not only because he ate of the fruit, but because he listened to his wife and disobeyed. It is true that Adam should have been responsible for her, and what was going on. This, while not explicitly stated is implied in the punishment phase of God's anger with them, and confirmed in later scriptures.
If we did not understand from a wider viewpoint than the things specifically stated, we would have to assume that when he drove "the man" from the garden, that Eve was left there and only Adam was forced out. Yet, we know that both were meant in that statement. So, if we assume that sin entering the world 'only' through Adam is accurate, we would be, again, in error. So, who is more wrong, the sinner who first bit the fruit, or the one who followed suit and did the same? I would say neither, since there are not sins greater than one another. All sin is worthy of death. I would mention, in passing that, punishment for sins seem to carry varying degrees, but since the death is the ulitmate punishment, these must imply something different...something that is specific to God and he has not decided to explain. Something to ponder, I suppose.
This blog sure has a lot of intelligent and thoughtful readers! I appreciate the tone of this discussion. It is quite thought provoking.
I am new to this post. Many Christians believe that since doctrines divide it is better not to talk about doctrines and whatever their doctrinal stand is not because of their conviction based on the study of scripture but because of their tradition or because their church believes so. Many do not want their beliefs and practices to be tested by scripture. I do not think we can gloss over the doctrinal differences of such people and shake hands with them. If our differences with the other person on baptisms, eschatology and many other doctrines are after we are both clearly convinced from the scripture then it is acceptable. As Paul writes,Whatever is not from faith is sin (Rom 14:23)
I'm going to maybe put myself in some hot water here, but what if the doctrine isn't in "error" per se? I am a credobaptist through-and-through. However, I also can see how someone could draw the conclusion paedobaptists do. Just a thought, but is it possible that a doctrine isn't in error, but is merely lacking? Ie, maybe both points are correct to a degree, and they actually can happily cohabitate?Maybe I'm way off base here, but it's a thought.
This is a very difficult question. I left a church that forced a candidate or ministry to say that certain worship was by its very nature sin. I left because I could not say that it was sin. Certain men of my denomination wanted to call this worship practice a mistake but not a sin. Yet I am not sure how we do answer this question. Of course it is very significant to fellowship and ecumenical matters. Especially when men agree 99% of the time but refuse to work together because of that 1% of the time.
Sin is falling short of God's standard of perfection. Obviously God only has one perfect meaning for each text of scripture. When we miss that perfect meaning, I think it IS sin. I think I'm the only commenter who has said that!! Not to say it is a sin of known rebellion, but sin is still sin even when we are unaware of it.
That being said, I think we should be cautious about confronting the sin of wrong doctrine. Because, we don't always know for sure whose doctrine is the sinful doctrine. Especially on matters that aren't very clear in scripture.
I think we MUST humbly say though, that a misrepresentation of what God has said is sin. "Shocking" you say? I don't think so. I think we sin way more often than we care to think about. This should urge us to "get the text right" and be thankful for God's grace to cover us when we mistakenly misrepresent Him.
The fact that this conversation can be had would seem to imply that the practical result of doctrinal disunity should be challenging one another with Scripture.
Several good examples of difference in "secondary" (I hate that term as it implies that something secondary isn't also important, but I have no better term to use) doctrine have been raised (ie - baptism, eschatology, cessationism, etc.). It would be unfortunate, however, for a credobaptist and a paedobaptist to obstinantly stand their ground without clarifying and justifying their beliefs through Scripture. Practically speaking, we should always be willing to challenge one another and search Scripture more deeply. The fact that disagreement exists shouldn't discourage us or make us believe that greater doctrinal purity isn't possible.
Church history is full of theological refinement that was wrought through study of Scripture, disagreement, and challenge from heresy (the Trinity would be a prime example). Today we take certain doctrines for granted that at one point were contentious divisive issues.
So whether or not disunity is sin (I would suggest error IS sin if it stems from laziness or obstinancy), practically speaking, we should always be ready to search the Bible, challenge one another, and confirm our beliefs against God's authoritative Word.
Sorry, this is much longer than I planned!
I think what Warren said might have some relevence here. Isn't it possible that in some areas, those areas which Scripture does not make a clear sin/not sin issue, God does not have one uncompromiseable answer? If I'm a manager, and I have two workers, they may do the same job slightly different ways. However, as long as they are seeking to honor their job, meet every requirement and guideline I've given, and are as faithful to the job as they possibly can, I'll be happy with both.
I think Christians fighting over non-sin issues need to consider the possibility that not all DIFFERENCES in minor doctrine and practice require SIN of one party or the other.
Second, in more significant cases of error, we need to have a lot of wisdom in approaching a brother who is teaching error IN GOOD CONSCIENCE. We may debate them, but we must do it in an irenic, loving, and constructive fashion. Ultimately God will judge whether they were sinning in that teaching or not, but from where we sit the goal must be constructive rather than spiteful or argumentative.
Wow, Tim, this is one major curve ball. Something I did not expect to read after a long days work. I have not thought about this that much honestly, but I have struggled to believe that those who do not agree with the atonement & penal substitution are not committing heresy. This is of course a primary issue - one of which is causing a good amount of uproar around the blogsphere right now, albeit a good, discerning uproar that is necessary.
Baptism and eschatology are both secondary issues to me where Christians may disagree principally even based on Scripture, and yet I am seeing how our conscience is bound to our Spirit aided discernment. I am considering and examining Romans 14:1-12 as I think it seems applicable to this discussion...
I reckon this to be a great Q&A topic to be discussed by the brothers of Together For The Gospel. Consider saving this and have it answered by the guys. Because indeed, there is differences in their position on both baptism and eschatology. And yet, for all of them, to believe and teach what they believe is still in accordance with Scripture. Thus, I am thinking whether "sinful" error in doctrine would occur when it is in gross misinterpretation of Scripture (and in our era, this seems to happen more in secondary/tertiary issues).
Hmm... maybe you should be the one asking this at the 08 T4G. I for one would luv to hear what MacArthur would say about this one!
I know of no human (with the exception of our Lord himself) who has no error in doctrine - Tim rightfully said that all doctrinal issues will be resolved when we get to Heaven. I would be very surprised if one person had it all right.
In essence though, sin draws us away from God. If your doctrines draw you closer to God and to your fellow believers, then I would struggle to place this in the sin category, especially since a believer's doctrine is ever changing/being added to. It's the nature of the Christian's development.
In all things, we should be asking ourselves - does this draw me into a deeper understanding of God or a deeper relationship with Him? If that's the basis of a believer's doctrine and does not conflict with what is clearly set out in scripture, then I believe it is God glorifying.
Tiffany (#29) makes a good point: "Sin is falling short of God's standard of perfection." Perhaps the following points would help (or they might draw some criticism :) )
1. It is sin to do anything out of love for anything other than God.
2. It is God alone who puts His love for Himself in the heart. So in order to do anything that is not sin, or that is love for God, it must be God working in the heart. From the heart come motives and from them thoughts or actions flow.
3. God is a God of truth and there is nothing false in Him nor can He tell any lie.
4. Falsehood does not come from truth.
5. Therefore, if anyone believes or teaches a false doctrine, even if he/she does not realize it, it is not coming from the working of God in the heart but from (at least partially) something that is actually falling short of the glory of God. Therefore there is at least some degree of sin involved.
Note: I am simply putting forth a logical argument, not any of the implications. There must be Christian charity and a realization that we are most certainly not correct in all our doctrine. There can also be a mixture of motives and the heart in any particular doctrine (God putting desires in the heart mixed with sinful desires). But perhaps this would help us to realize the depth of sin in our own hearts. How much of our lives do we really see God working in, and how much of what we think or do is coming from the flesh and so is at war with God?
I'd say that a doctrine is sinful if it leads to sin. That should be the main test of the matter. What is its fruit?
Also, I'd like to note that one can be completely and utterly correct in their doctrine and still be sinning by their attitude in terms of how they teach or otherwise expound upon that doctrine.
Since, I suspect, no one on earth is completely and utterly correct in their doctrine (since, as you say, incorrect doctrine is a result of sin), then this sin of pride, evident in some in their teaching, is amplified by the fact that, in all likelihood, they are probably at least somewhat wrong.
Tim:
A very interesting and thought-provoking question.
Before attempting to add to this fine discussion, and as to not misunderstand you, it would be very helpful to hear you define your views biblically AND doctrinally. In your "three principles I've drawn up that seem to be relevant to this issue" there was no biblical and/or doctrinal/theological framework or foundation mentioned. Because Scripture is the only infallible and inerrant rule of faith that determines and defines what is sound doctrine, what is error, what constitutes sin, etc. then in answering your question we must focus our thoughts to its truth and instruction alone.
That would be indispensable to make this dialogue more than just a collection of all our opinions.
Thank you dear brother and I look forward to your further thoughts...SteveCol. 1:9-14
Tim, this is a really timely discussion. I have been thinking about this topic myself, and like you have not come up with a definite answer.
As my history involves the Word of Faith movement and Hyper-Faith Pentecostals, I have often wondered and battled with the question: "Are these men sinning by teaching false doctrine?". I know after God graciously set me free from that, I did feel frustrated that I had been deceived and lied to. It certainly 'felt' that I had been sinned against - but did God see it as sin? Were they ignorant? I have forgiven them, but again, was their error in doctrine sin?
So I guess my addition to the thread is this:
Does our perspective change in responding to Tim's thread when our example isn't infant vs. believer baptism, but whether words are a container that can hold 'faith' and create things or whether we are to spend our days 'binding spirits' to walk in peace and prosperity?? Or preaching that men and women (like myself) who consider themselves 'reformed' are grieving the Spirit and are walking after the logos word and not the rhema word?
From my experience, there are certain doctrines that can cause more damage and disillusion than others, but does this change whether it is sin or not?
Any doctrine that presents error as the very Truth of God, will lead to wrong thinking about Him. (Obviously in any doctrinal difference, someone is teaching error, no matter how small.) Wrong thinking about Him is sin. Basically wrong doctrine is a twisting of God's words...attributing to Him, things that He just has not said. I'm definitely not saying this is done intentionally. I'm sure all of us are guilty of this in some form.
We should say with the psalmist,"Lord aquit me of hidden faults".
Great Discussion. We must remember that Jesus was said to have grown in in wisdom (Luke 2) and obedience (the scripture escapes me but I'll look it up.) He was completely sinless and yet there was room for growth (yes, that boggles the mind but it is what scripture declares)
We must also remember the noetic effect of sin (a counseling term, means that our fallen minds cannot understand anything but by God's favor and grace; all our understanding is clouded by our flesh) We cannot in our flesh know anything unless God's spirit reveals it to us. Even what we do understand is clouded by our weak flesh that is why we must ask God for wisdom. Someone else earlier quoted Romans "what is not of faith is sin." If a person who is seeking God, humbly submitting himself to the word and diligently studying with a humble heart from faith he is not sinning if he comes to a conclusion that differs with an equally godly man. Consider Paul and Barnabus and the decision to take or not take Mark on the journey. Was one or the other sinning? Also we must remember that the goal of our instruction is to present every man to a mature faith. Some "error" may be due to sin, but it may be that he just needs to grow in his understanding. It may be that just as some regard one day as more important that another (Romans 14) we must be fully convinced in our own minds. If we are truly seeking God with the heart of humility He will give grace. I think that is the issue. Doctrinal error that is a result of sin leads to more sin. We see this in Timothy and Titus where we are warned to correct and rebuke those oppossed to sound teaching.Lastly we must remember that teachers are held accountable for their teaching so we must strive ever and always to be pleasing to Him in our dividing of the Word of God.
At the risk of sounding snide: you brethren walk the dog by its tail, and marveling that the going is so tough. No, the puppy will not learn to like it!
Division DIVIDES, wonder of wonders!
I see brethren here, articulately engaging in endless debate and discussion, and with much self-congratulation (one brother put it well; largely just opinions) regarding tributary issues, while LIVING the very sin that lies at the root of the subject issue.
That sin is denominationalism, born of human pride and obstinacy; lack of humility and teachability. Augustine was right and Pelagius wrong about soteriology; the Bible is not muddy on the issue. But because Augustine was wrong on other things, later Christians have been able to choose the opposing side and gloat, in unbiblical practice.
One sees this at high-school "pep rallies" that are so common in the government schools. One sees this at GOP and Democrat political conventions: the pugilist picks a side, and squares off against the 'stupid' enemy, just because he is the enemy. He is the other team. He is weird!
Yes, wonder of wonders: division does divide! The very sin against which Christ prayed, the Calvinist or Arminian wears on his shield as a badge of honor! Is it really so hard to read the Scripture and see quite clearly that there is not ONE instance of a person being baptised first, and THEN coming to Christ? No; it's the clearest thing in the world to know that paedobaptists are just playing by their team play-sheet.
And because, like all those Augustinians in the days of Pelagian heresy -- the modern 'Reformed' braniac refuses to budge because he has some major brianpower behind his position, on his team! Can he ever see giants such as RC Sproul*, backtracking on his pseudo-papist baby-wetting insurance policy? At his age? No, indeed.
And of course, RC Sproul and those of his ilk are really, really smart fellows. They've done the study. They can't be wrong.
Just because you can't find it in the New Testament, doesn't mean you can't find some really interesting theological threads back to the OT circumcision rite, etc! Oh, it's all there in the Bible, you just have to be a real intellect to grasp it! And we all know that an Arminian is intellectually challenged!
So yes, we 'baptise' our infants, not just because RC Sproul and such heavy-hitters do it, but because Calvin did it**, and Augustine*** did it. OK, so you can't find our favorite doctrine or practice explicitly in the New Testament, but let's not be picky! As with the fine classical Christian school that we have enrolled our children in: nothing is too good for our children. They are children of the Newest Covenant.
And no, we're not giving one inch, even if you show us from the Bible that we're following what you call 'doctrines of men'. The men we follow are the Fathers of the Faith; the Giants of the Church! Yes, there are denominations, because doctirne is important.
Even if it's stuff that men made up.
We are mere men, and fallible. As long as we continue to join in troops and camps under banners of men, we should not be surprised that Christ's Church finds no unity. This is the way with men.
Ironically, this particular sin is far less evident in the huge growth areas of the Church where most of our brethren now live (Asia, Africa, Latin America) -- but these burgeoning portions of the body of Christ are those most in need of the solid doctrines articulated by Calvin -- without the Romanist accretions about infants and such.
Baptismians are almost as bad as Calvinians; the Baptismian, still furious over his forefathers who were drowned (in the name of Christ!) by followers of Luther and Calvin, simply refuses to give doctrinal ground to "the other team". Thus, even though the developing Church badly needs what both "teams" have to offer, they will likely get neither.
We should pray that men would cease the partisanship; and that if it means leaving a die-hard camp with recalcitrnat unbiblical doctrine, so be it.
Christ prayed that we be one. Semper reformanda.
_____________
*I consider RC Sproul one of my key teachers in the Christian faith and life, and a dear man. But flawed, as we all are.
**Calvinians love to say that Calvinism is nothing more than biblical theology, systematised; that it is merely Augustine's theology in redux, a millennium later. Indeed, that is so. Now read Augustine, if you will; for all his excellent philosophical and moral teaching, some of his doctrines were demonstrably Roman Catholic hogswallop from nose to tail. A man of his time. As was Calvin, who cut political deals with potentates to keep his head on his shoulders and so as not to disenfranchise fearful parents, who given the infant mortality rate of the day, demanded insurance on their newborns. Calvin was a half-reformer; anyone in that time who wanted FULL reformation was lumped together with the gaggle of theologies, practices, and movements that did not keep the Roman rites, and tagged under the single epithet, "Anabaptist". Some of these were nut-flakes; most of them were mere NT Christians.
Those who worship "the Reformation" only show their ignorance of Church history; serious reforms to the Roman Catholic heresies began as early as the 5th century, and continued apace in every generation through the time of the "magisterial reformers" and beyond.
It's ironic to hear those of "the Reformed Faith" team, chant about "ecclesia reformata, reformanda semper" (the reformed church, always reforming), and yet resisting with all their might, any attempt to show where Calvin was just a man of his political times, and wrong. Demonstrably wrong, from a plain reading of the NT.
***To read Augustine is to see a man's theology and ecclesiology at war against one another. Go figure.
To put it in list form:
1) No, the sin is not to hold an errant doctrine while yet ignorant of the facts; the sin is to maintain it after knowing the facts full well, but being unwilling to leave one's beloved team, with all of its trappings.
2) The unwavering, proud, un-teachable, unforgiving spirit of denominational men is sin, whether it is a Baptismian, a Lutherian, or a Calvinian committing the sin.
3) As long as a Christian is more concerned with the approval of men in his camp, and not going against the teachings of his camp (even though he sees the opposing position supported by the preponderance of God's Word) then he worships not Christ but a denomination. That is indeed sin; the sin of idolatry.
4) The 'reformed baptist' should realise that having an entire denomination based on just one of Christ's institutions, is silly. Why not have a whole denomination (and sub-denominations) called "Lord's Supperist" then? Is it because like the 21st century Black American, you are still furious over your forefathers 500 years ago being killed by the other team? Forgive your brother; understand how much good could come of re-unifying these huge warring camps!
5) The 'reformed Calvinist' and 'reformed Lutheran' should realise that on the one issue (baptism), Luther and Calvin were simply unbiblical and WRONG. They were great men, indeed; but they sold out to the powers of their day, who were sold out to Rome. They SHOULD have reformed entirely, but didn't (in their place, we'd have done the same, to keep our heads).
6) Modern 'reformed' Baptismians, Calvinians and Lutherians can live up to their self-proclaimed 'reformed' labels by giving up their cherished, unbiblical positions in doctrine and praxis. In other words, by becoming mere Christians.
They would have to sacrifice a lot of cool stuff ('precious distinctives'); slough off centuries of cherished team trophies.
What would happen to their beloved seminaries, libraries, buildings, universities, and the like? Hmmm...no, I doubt they will leave all that good stuff, just to live the Scriptures. Better to keep one or two pet doctrines that they "just don't see" yet. Uh huh.
7) The thing that simply will NOT happen, given man's sin nature: proud, articulate, cerebral power-lifters will not, on principle, mouth the expression, "I was wrong."
Jesus' lament/prayer over this issue indicates that as with everything else that can be known, our King knew this.
The most ironic (funny?) part of the 'Reformed Paedobaptist' position is that apparently the pope is just as Reformed with regard to wetting babies and calling it "baptism".
Yes, just last month, the current pope (Joe Ratzinger) ruled that he was shutting down Limbo. No, not the dance; he was referring to the Roman Catholic baby-ovens that have been set on 'simmer' for millennia. Pope Joe just turned them off, presto! But the Vatican was quick to point out that RC parents should still wet their babies as an insurance policy.
If I was a betting man, I'd wager that many Calvinists who've been seeking a high-church liturgy to match their classical Christian school, to be coming on home to "Mother Church" soon.
After all, doctrines are secondary; if there's now no Limbo, who's to say there might be no Hell, eh?
;o)
Yes. It is sin. There, how's that for a short answer? We may have the best intentions and think we have the most informed opinion, but there is a right and a wrong when it comes to doctrine. So, whether willfully teaching error or unwillfully teaching error, it is error and it is sin, which would agree with your statement, "First, it is clear to me that, regardless of whether or not error in doctrine is always sin, error in doctrine is always a consequence of sin."
Mikebry24,
do you know any preachers, teachers etc who are totally sinless when it comes to preaching or teaching doctrine?And what about yourself?
God bless,Joop
Joop,
I don't think that's the way Tim nuanced the question. The statement that Mike just quoted was the gist (I believe) of Tim's position, with which I agree wholeheartedly.
Doctrine is terribly important, and in every case in which men have killed other men over doctrine -- or at the very least, where men have created new denominations over the issue -- the Christian can do as the Breans did (search the Scriptures with a pure heart and a desire only for God's truth) and find a clear preponderance of NT directives or indicatives for one doctrine or practice over another.
This is certainly so for baptism. Baptism is only ONE thing: it is the 'washing' ceremony that takes place after a person has been saved by grace through faith: Repent, believe, be baptised. That is the only order we see in Scripture.
Yet, when faithful Christians in Europe and the Lowlands attempted to simply live the NT model of baptism (rather than baptise babies as the twisted Roman rite required), the followers of Luther, Calvin, and popes drowned them for it. By the hundreds, Christians were killed for simply following the NT model of a practice instituted by Christ and the apostles. To this day, Lutherans and Calvinists who proudly call themselves 'Reformed', still refuse to give up this papist superstition, this religious rite that turns Scripture on its head!
The other divisive issue that Tim mentioned- eschatology- also divides the Church today. A whole new generation of ignorant Christians follows the Christian Zionist legend about Israel, totally sundering the gospel of Jesus Christ; erasing the book of Hebrews from Scripture and idolising a political state created by England and the USA in 1947...a state that is avowedly dismissive of Christ as son of God, and Christ as Lord!
These people drum up their own Armageddons (in books, CD's, false teaching series and conferences) for a false prophet's profit! They preach end times, when the Lord Himself directed us NOT to listen to such false prophets! He warned us that they would come, and told us NOT to follow them!
Now, it is not as though these false teachers (Calvinists, Zionists) and followers of men (rather than of Christ) don't know any better. Of all things, they are NOT stupid or unschooled men, most of them. But they ARE obstinately attached to their false teachings, and lead others astray in the same.
They will answer for it one day, and their judgment will be far worse for teaching such things, not just believing them. Christ has said it; I am only repeating it.
If a man teaches falsehood even after much reproof and evidence from the Scriptures, brought to him in love and over a period of time, then he faces judgment for it. If he is unwilling to give up his adoration of popes (of John Calvin, or John Hagee), then he already has his captain, his king, his lord. And it's the wrong one.
Luther did his best, I'm sure. But what he REALLY meant by "my conscience is captive to the word of God", was this:
1) My conscience in certain matters that are very unpopular with the people (ie, selling of indulgences, vatican censures) is captive to the word of God;
2) my conscience on other matters that are popular with the people (ie, wetting infants to assure them of heaven, and calling this NT baptism) is captive to the vatican teaching and popular opinion.
Luther was a great man, indeed, although much finer men preceeded him but lacked his PR talent and political contacts. Luther was far from perfect; although his statement was correct to the extent he was applying it, I don't think he meant that his conscience was actually bound by all of Scripture. His papist accretions and superstitions prove that his conscience was bound by tradition at least as much as by Scripture, which teaches the opposite of what Luther taught.
Just out of curiosity, David, what have you read defending the paedobaptist position?
David,
There are all kinds of false doctrines and error in the Church. You mentioned Israel doctrines (natural Israel vs 'replacement theology') and in eschatology (pretrib, midtrib, posttrib, other trib etc).All churches and groups and christians claim they have the right doctrines. They cannot all be right.However can we always speak of sin when a doctrine is wrong? I am very cautious about that.
I can give you one example you may think about it:There is the doctrine of OSAS, Once Saved Always Saved, (or the 'perseverance of the saints') To me that is a false doctrine and I could support this by scripture. Others think, no, that's the right doctrine (and could support that by scripture - they think...)What could be the result of not believing the doctrine of OSAS? Christians who don't believe in OSAS and who are tempted to commit adultery will think twice. They won't jeopardize their souls, I suppose!However, Christians who do believe in OSAS might think when temptation comes (and it will come!):Well, I know, adultery is a sin, but I am going to heaven anyway because: Once Saved Always Saved! So let's have some fun now!
So what about the preacher who teaches against OSAS? Is he sinning according to the Christians who DO believe in OSAS? But the result of teaching against OSAS may well be that less Christians commit adultery, so we could have a positive result!And what about the preacher who teaches OSAS? Is he sinning according to the Christians who are saying that OSAS is error? Moreover, the result of teaching OSAS may well be that more Christians commit adultery (and other grievious sins). As I said, they think they will be saved anyway. And what when it were a lie? As you could read in the Book of Revelation 21:8: adulterers will go to hell, unless they repent in time! And IF these 'christian adulterers' go to hell, who will also be responsible for that? The teachers who preach OSAS?
About pedobaptism: too many people somehow think traditions are more important than scripture. I think Christians, holding pedobaptism are living under a veil and there eyes should be opened.
Again, I am very cautious to claim all these people are sinning when 'baptizing' their babies.
God bless,
Joop
It is late in the conversation, but I have a couple of thoughts I have not seen expressed.
Matthew 22:37, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."
To love God with "ALL your mind" means to not only always think pretty thoughts about him, but to also think correct thoughts. I may complement my wife with thoughts of her beauty, but if tonight I order chineese food for supper I will have failed at loving her with my mind. Why? She hates chineese food and I should know that about her and when I don't it upsets her...rightfully so.
Likewise, it is offensive to think thoughts about God that are not correct. So, when we ask if teaching any form of error is sin - whether or not we couch it in categories of "consequence" or not is essentially useless - the point is that it is a failure on our part to live up to the degree of love we are to perform for God.
The same is true with our hearts. None of us can, nor will, love God with our hearts. Piper helps us understand this from Dueteronomy 28 where the Isrealites were promised destruction because they failed to FEEL what God wanted them to in their lives before him.
In the end, all our righteousness is as filthy rags. All our good doctrine is not good enough and there is never enough of it. This is not an excuse to lethargy, but should convict us of our lack, and look to Christ as our sufficient help in our lack.
When we read 1 Corinthians 11:27 that we are to partake of the Lord's table in a "worthy" manner, we only come having trusted Christ to make us worthy. Likewise, in doctrine the most we'll ever do is screw it up!
We must only trust Christ to make us worthy and to work in us the doctrine that he demands from us.
I have not answered the question as to how to handle disputes between one another, or how to veiw one another. This can be answered at another time. But, I believe this is the first step we must take in answering this VERY important question.
Joop's comment illustrates the concern I have when reading posts such as David has placed here.
Joop conflates OSAS and the Reformed doctrine of perseverance. They are most definitely not the same doctrine and this tells me that Joop has not read sufficiently on the subject. He further compounds the error by equating OSAS with easy believism and antinomianism. The impression that one comes away with is that persons affirming the perseverance of the saints countenance immoral behavior in Christians because they can't lose their salvation. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Similarly, David has argued strenuously against paedobaptism without convincing me that he is familiar with the standard defenses of the practice by Christian communions that have been at pains to distinguish themselves from Roman Catholicism. He also tends to attribute subscription to paedobaptism as following the teachings of fallible men such as Luther and Calvin rather than Christ. There is not just a little question-begging going on here.