The major doctrines must always be upheld without any mixture of error but even in matters of secondary issues I think there are some that need to be heeded seriously. Like the issue of womens roles within the church . This issue borders on the first because it will effect how one uses hermeneutics, which will impact other text as well if they are consistent. Plus it is a erosion of biblical authority.Way too many deal with doctrine so causally that its scary . We may get up in arms at what someone listens to or watches but if a person gets the gospel wrong we just shrug our shoulders.

I like how you framed the motivation for this discussion. While I agree we should look past secondary issues in many cases, too often we don’t recognize the practical implications of the differences.

Thank you for sharing. You’ve given me something to consider.

-Marshall Jones Jr.

Great points, especially your first one that errors are at the least consequences of sin.

I use the “majors and minor” standard. Is the doctrine a major one taught in the Bible or a minor one?

Baptism is important to consider, but to me a definite sin is denying HUGE doctrines like God’s sovereignty, which is taught on almost every page of the Bible. The same goes for God’s omnipotence and omniscience. Yet many liberal and even conservative Arminian churches are denying these doctrines every Sunday.

And what of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ? Is someone who denies this obvious Biblical doctrine sinning? Of course. But what about the pastor or church who never even mentions either way what they believe, yet you see through their actions they do not hold to it as an important doctrine?

Another doctrine which appears to be lost on today’s Christians is the Duet. 6 mandate of teaching your Children the faith. I think many Christians are sinning in this regard, expecting the State or private schools to educate them on everything, including the Bible, plus a once a week trip to Church. As a believer, to not teach your children basic Biblical truths is fundamentally denying the Great Commission given by Christ.

i agree that we have to define sin here. and michael’s given us one definition. i define sin as missing the mark that God has set for us — failing to live life as it was intended. the greek word, hamartia, is defined that way if i’m correct: to miss the mark. it was used in the writings of the day to refer to such things as an archer who misses his target. and it makes romans 3:23 — falling short of the glory of God — all the more meaningful.

so i’d suggest that an error in doctrine, if God has in his mind a “correct” answer, is always sin. i feel like we try to make sin a greater transgression than it is. to lack joy and peace… sin. to worry… sin. to miss an opportunity to share the gospel with someone… sin. it’s like we want ‘sin’ to be this dark word that means something really bad. “oh, this one is bad enough that i should correct my brother — but this one’s not.” if he’s my brother, and i’m able to correct him in love, why would i choose to refrain from doing so, regardless of how big his error?

You claim the following: “A person who teaches that homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle that the Bible condones is likewise teaching grievous error and error that can be easily proven so from the Bible.”

The late reformed theologian Lewis Smedes arrived at a very different biblical conclusion about the morality of Christian gay couples than you apparently have. Would you accuse him of unsound biblical scholarship as compared to yours? Would you accuse him of teaching “grievous error” which should not be tolerated in the church?

First — I think the Captchas are getting a little difficult!! 6+8 … I mean c’mon … I had to take off my shoes in the middle of the library just to submit a post!

That being said…

I wanted to agree with Tim, but I find myself unable to. I think there is (perhaps) an unhealthy divorce of theology and practice in this post. It’s fine to ask about a pastor who believes or preaches on one view of baptism, but that is not the end of the story. This same pastor also PERFORMS baptisms. So we could just as easily ask, “One man baptizes an infant and another refuses to, is either committing sin?”

When viewed from the perspective that both believe that Baptism is a command from God, then I think that either baptizing the infant must either be sinful or that refusing to baptizing said infant must be sinful.

Consider the Old Testament Priest who preaches Saturday messages on the problem with circumcising infants! Would his refusal to circumcise the babies be sinful? I’d say so. He’d be refusing to do something that God has commanded him to do.

I think that by definition, baptizing an infant or refusing to baptize an infant MUST either be a sin of omission or a sin of commission (depending on who is correct).

Eschatology might be a better example of having doctrinal distinctives that are not sinful, but I’d have to think about that more.

Just my thoughts,mike

Why would ANY error be considered right, much less, righteous?

Sin is transgression of God’s law, as 1st John tells us.

If addition yields truth (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4), then the statement 2 + 2 = 5 is false; it is a lie; it is a sinful proposition.

Why would not error in doctrine therefore also be necessarily sinful, as well?

Ironic that we must solve an arithmetic problem to post! :)

I read all the comments. Several commentors suggested that Tim was incorrect, that it is always the case that our doctrinal views are either biblically correct or they are biblically incorrect and, thus, sinful. Quite a few of these commentors used believer baptism vs paedobaptism as an example, arousing my curiosity. So, I just have to ask:

Which view of baptism is biblically incorrect and sinful?

All secondary issues are secondary, but some are more secondary than others. Together for the Gospel has been called by some Together for Calvinism and Complementarianism (both of which I am!), and many agree that both monergism and complementarianism (gasp!) are secondary though T4G would not likely have a speaker who deviates from either.

I think you have to be very careful regarding a “conscience clause,” because we are all susceptible to error and deception, originating both within ourselves for any number of reasons (for example a desire to rationalize sin), and also from the influence of others (for example, the desire to fit in or be well-regarded.) It is that very deception that enables us to resolve the cognitive dissonance and so silence our conscience when confronted with our error or even to lash out at those with the temerity to question our position.

I should always be open to the possibility that I am in error, and I should be always willing to listen to someone who cares enough about me to confront me with the scripture that demonstrates that. Doctrine, even “secondary” doctrine, has consequences.

IMO, the farther a doctrine or practice is removed from *explicit* scripture, the more suspect it becomes. That’s why I’m credobaptist and why I’m opposed both to paedobaptism and also to practical paedobaptism where a credobaptist church baptizes very young children.

I was looking forward to reading this post, but was slightly disappointed, because the arguments didn’t seem very convincing to me.

For example, Tim’s second point doesnt sit well with me. IMO, his example of a child born disabled is not comparable to a Christian studying the scriptures and coming to a conclusion about what he believes it says. A child born disabled has no choice in the matter, but a Christian is responsible for his choice of what to believe, and has to be faithful to study the scriptures and make the right decision. If he doesn’t do so, and makes the wrong decision, that is his responsibility and his sin.

In general, i think the bottom line is that we can’t always be so prideful and sure of our understanding of these “secondary issues” which are not 100% clear in the Bible, to the point that we accuse others of sin if they don’t agree with us. I think we have to be humble enough to entertain the idea that perhaps I am the one who is wrong here…

(yay, i’m so glad i got an easy captcha 9+1=10. no calculator required!)

I think it is rather indicative that he conversation needs to lead in one direction and needs to consider one thing further before it can. While the Conscience holds captive, it too can be wrong. This of course is implied but cannot be ignored just because such has been acknowledged. This is important as the knowledge of ultimate orthodoxy—the Holiness of God— doesn’t tolerate deviance so the same can be said of “secondary issues.” These issues are not secondary when compared to that standard. Do I say then that all issues that should then be counted as sin since they are not in concordance with God’s absolute holiness should be measures of dis-fellowship? By no means! But the sinfulness of our heterodoxy cannot be ignored and should not be downplayed. This is of course assumed and validated by the future correction when all things will be made right in our Lord,and truly all will then be orthodox—even the sinful knee will bow. The Holiness of God has never announced anything different nor laid a smaller burden. AS frustrating as I am sure that sounds, it does mean that many good men are in sin, despite their consciences. This is where it must begin. What then is our basis of unity? Ah! Here’s the glory, in Christ! Do we have some other measure? Is it not here,with He that our unity is measured (and therefore The Prime) of holiness? Is it not in His grace we are made one with He? Are we to expect something different towards each other? Some other force that would bind us one to another despite the sinful members? No, I do not think so. What then dictates the charity we are to as members of the same body to share in the secondary issues, though they be sinful sins (thus the consequence is division)? Is it not the same grace that saved us? Ought this not to be the priority that allows me to suffer long the sin of a brother I disagree with in conscience? Is it not he same thing that makes it so I can continue to confront the sin,as iron sharpens iron? That is, as my Lord does? With gracious rapport yet convinced adherence to doctrinal purity? How did Christ handle the heterodoxy of his own disciples? In this manner. And what did he pray for in His High Priestly prayer? Or, rather, who did He pray to? Was it not God,the Holy, who most key, makes us Holy in His Son? Our unity then is a matter of fact,just as our new nature— and the same reason (despite our sin) that we ought to bear one another’ burdens and confront the sins of our heterodoxy while at he same time binding ourselves to the Primacy of the Gospel which will, in Christ, make us heirs of all things—even right doctrine. The sin must be acknowledged,the sinner confronted—consider Paul and Peter,was this a primary issue by the standards of today’s discussion? It is not so far from it! Consider the doctrines that frame the debate of credo and paedobaptists but he unity must not (in fact,in Christ, cannot be dissolved. This would be just as sinful!)

Technically, a lie can be made with or without the intent to deceive.

But whether one calls it a lie or a false statement, an error is sinful since it is untrue. No lie (no falsehood, not merely intentional deception) is of the truth.

Of course, being inherently sinful, we of ourselves can do nothing but sin, make mistakes, utter error, intentionally and unintentionally misstate things. Behind all our actions are hearts (as some reminded us above) that are desparately wicked.

Our big problem is our inherent sinfulness, not merely our particular sins. And, as God cannot lie (utter falsehood, not merely intentionally deceive), or make a mistake, any error or falsehood is sinful.

Tim,

All deviation from God’s truth is sin: “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” As you know, we must believe by faith, worship by faith, and live by faith. And our faith must be grounded solely upon the Word of God. It cannot be grounded on our understanding — it has been corrupted by sin, as you pointed out. However, our conscience can neither correct our understanding nor serve as a dependable guide in interpreting Scripture: “but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and *conscience* is defiled” (Titus 1:15).

As Scripture teaches, we are all totally depraved by nature, and thus come into the world fitting the description Paul gives in the verse above. This corrupt nature will always remain in believers until death (Rom. 7), and will cause them to continually be confessing sin and praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.

Yes, it is true the love is the fulfilling of the law, and a person does not have to be right in everything to go to heaven. Too often, though, this truth is wrongly used to minimize the nature and extent of our sinfulness. A depraved mind, a misinformed conscience will often lead a sincere Christian into error which a just and holy God cannot excuse. But blessed be our Lord Jesus Christ — our Advocate with Father — who takes away all sin, whether intentional or not (I John 2:2).

Just a thought: Perhaps the divisions which arise in the Protestant church are sin rather than the differences in understanding. We are a very division marked body of people. If by providence I am holidaying in a different locality and should happen to see someone local converted, I’d probably try and direct them to the nearest Bible believing church - even though they may not be my flavour of church. eg f I’m presy and see a good bapo church in a town, but a dead presy church - where am I going to direct that new convert? Same if there were a great charismatic church vs a dead mainstream church. More than likely over the years most people remain within denominations which they grew up in. I don’t call that sinfulness. I would rather say it is like what CS lewis was saying in the post above. The pursuit of a being true church nearly always bring pride and division from the rest of the body of Christ.

But hey, i could be wrong =)I could be sinning right now because of my error in judgment.

But that knowledge just makes me even more thankful for Christ and His sacrifice that saves me from condemnation for such sins! Praise be to our Lord God!

Sorry for being so unclear. Certainly, we are not required to be infinitely holy or knowledgeable.

God possesses holiness and truth to an infinite degree; Adam in his innocent state possessed holiness and truth to a finite degree, but was still perfect. In other words, he was as holy as a limited, finite creature could be.

This is the standard all Christians are called to, and it is a standard that is fully described in the Bible (in Reformed circles, this is called the “perspicuity of Scripture”). An errant mind or conscience cannot excuse deviation from this standard.

My main point, however, is that unintentional sins are still sins. Will a police officer in Holland automatically excuse you for speeding, because you couldn’t understand the roadsign? Likely he will respond that ignorance/error is no excuse; you still broke the law. Similarly, just because we made an error in interpreting God’s standard in a particular area, we have still sinned, and come short of His glory.

True, the Scriptural view of sin is very humbling, but it also magnifies the love of Christ, in that He suffered so much for so many sins of so many people. It also shows us the uselessness of trying to live by the law for one minute—the vanity of trying to live one minute apart from Christ, whose blood cleanses us from all sin (I John 1).

I think the advice Elihu gave to Job applies: “That which I see not teach thou me: if I have done iniquity, I will do no more” (Job 34:32).

David was likely confessing his sins committed in ignorance, when he prayed, “Cleanse thou me from secret faults” (Ps 19:12).

If it leads people away form the true gospel and into delusion, which all errors eventually do… Id say thats sin.