We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not — 1Jn 5:18
Faults, lacks in social deportment that may be offensive, and mistakes in opinion, judgment, and actions are not sins - unless they include a voluntary act of disobedience against a known commandment of God (1Joh 3:4; 5:17).
What may be sin for one person may not be sin for another due to difference in light and understanding of what God requires (Rom 14:22,23; Joh 9:41; Jam 4:17; Rom 3:20; 5:13). The position that mistakes are sin and therefore all believers are sinners will tend to lead people to the conclusion that willful acts of disobedience are compatible with salvation.
As the scriptures are very clear that whoever is born of God doesn’t sin (1John 2:3,4; 5:18). The view that Christians sin is not only unscriptural but harmful as it will weaken the believer’s resolve to resist all willful acts of disobedience.
Wesley held and taught the position that sin was “an actual, voluntary transgression of the law; of the revealed, written law of God” (The Great Privilege of Those That Are Born of God section II.2) and that “even babes in Christ are so far perfect as not to commit sin” (Plain Account of Christian Perfection section 12.2).
The early Methodist leaders taught that under the new covenant sin is rated by light and understanding and where they is no law there is no sin. Further they taught that faults, errors, and mistakes in opinion and action were not sins as the will and temptation were not involved and they were compatible with love, and love is the fulfilling of the law.
The danger of the position that most Christians takes is that they mixes faults, errors, and mistakes in opinion with acts of willful sins calling both sin, thereby causing the Christian to profess to be a sinner, to daily confess his sins, and bow to the concept that he can’t live with out sin as we all know we will commit faults, errors, and mistakes in opinion and action.
This naming convention is faulty for the following reasons. 1) it is unbiblical as the new covenant scriptures clearly state that Christians don’t sin and whoever sins is not a Christian; 2) it uses the same name (sin) for two completely different acts, one that a Christian will do regularly (faults, errors and mistakes) and the other that they are completely saved from (willful sins); and 3) if faults and willful sins are both call sins and it is allowed that sins are consistent with the Christian experience many will not confine the sins they allow to faults.
While some many be able to operate under this system and keep involuntary transgressions (faults, errors, mistakes in opinion and action) separated from voluntary transgressions (what is called sin in under the new covenant) I have yet to hear or see anyone do it. They profess to be a sinner, and confess that they commit sin and nothing or little is said about what kind of sins.
Here is how John Wesley deals with this subject.
“(5.) The best of men still need Christ in his priestly office, to atone for their omissions, their short-comings, (as some not improperly speak,) their mistakes in judgment and practice, and their defects of various kinds. For these are all deviations from the perfect law, and consequently need an atonement. Yet that they are not properly sins, we apprehend may appear from the words of St. Paul, `He that loveth, hath fulfilled the law; for love is the fulfilling of the law.’ (Rom. 13:10.) Now, mistakes, and whatever infirmities necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the body, are noway contrary to love; nor therefore, in the Scripture sense, sin.
To explain myself a little farther on this head: (1.) Not only sin, properly so called, (that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law,) but sin, improperly so called, (that is, an involuntary transgression of a divine law, known or unknown,) needs the atoning blood. (2.) I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. (3.) Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. (4.) I believe, a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions. (5.) Such transgressions you may call sins, if you please: I do not, for the reasons above-mentioned.
Q. What advice would you give to those that do, and those that do not, call them so?
A. Let those that do not call them sins, never think that themselves or any other persons are in such a state as that they can stand before infinite justice without a Mediator. This must argue either the deepest ignorance, or the highest arrogance and presumption.
Let those who do call them so, beware how they confound these defects with sins, properly so called. But how will they avoid it? How will these be distinguished from those, if they are all promiscuously called sins? I am much afraid, if we should allow any sins to be consistent with perfection, few would confine the idea to those defects concerning which only the assertion could be true.”
November 14th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Hmmm, much to chew on brother. I’ve never embraced this doctrine yet never used it as an excuse to sin. I’ll meditate and pray over it and get back to you with any thoughts the Lord might give me.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not” 1Jn 5:18
Faults, lacks in social deportment that may be offensive, and mistakes in opinion, judgment, and actions are not sins - unless they include a voluntary act of disobedience against a known commandment of God (1Joh 3:4; 5:17).”
Brother Bob,
I was considering the above atatement and immediatley I thought of Paul’s account with Peter that is recorded in Galatians. I realize that you believe that Peter had a lapse of Judgement and therefore he did not sin, but let me use your own definition to show you otherwise. “A voluntary act of disobedience against a known command of God” did Peter do that?
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
1.Peter was to be blamed, now that word blamed is used 3 times in the N.T and the other 2 times are found in I John 3:19-20 where it is translated condemn now that sounds a little bit more than a error in judgment. If this was just an error in judgement then and not voluntary then he need not be condemned by Paul.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
2. Fear: was this fear a voluntary act of disobedience to a known command of God? Surley Peter knew that the Fear of man is a snare and I ‘m sure He had read:
1Sa 15:24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
What was Sauls sin? Fearing the people! Just like Peter Feared the Jews.
also:
Isa 8:12 Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
Isa 8:13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
The above is clear command that Peter disobeyed “don’t be afraid of the people.”
Peter was here tempted to Fear and willfully feared the Jews rather than God! So temptation and willfullness were both involved.
3.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
dissimulation is defined as hypocrisy. They wrere all being Hypocrites is Hypocrisy a sin? I don’t believe that you would call it a lapse of judgement would you? It is what Jesus accused the Pharisees of over and over again and Peter here was acting no different than a Pharisee and I can imagine that some he was eating with were Pharisees.
4. Not Uprightly:
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
What is not uprightly? Not righteously, they were walking unrighteously. I don’t know how you can justify Peters actions here.
I believe your desire to see all Christians walking in Holiness and sin free is very clear and is my desire also, but this teaching of Christians cannot sin and if they do they forfiet Salavtion is forcing you into the position of allowing hypocrisy , fear and unrighteousness as I have shown above. I believe it is a very dangerous doctrine to hold and will cause many to do the opposite of what you hope… excuse sin!
I’m praying for you
Jake Siemens
November 19th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hi Jake; Thanks for posting your comment.
>>>I realize that you believe that Peter had a lapse of Judgement and therefore he did not sin, but let me use your own definition to show you otherwise.
I feel like if Peter did what he did willfully that he sinned. But if he had a serious lapse of judgment in the heat of a moment I would not charge him with sin. Clearly what he did was wrong and need to he needed to be rebuked. Whether he did it willfully or not is some thing that is hard to judge and I will leave that to the Lord as I can’t see Peter’s heart and I don’t feel like the Bible makes it clear where he did or not. Either way what he did was wrong and needed to be strongly rebuked.
>>>1Sa 15:24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
What was Sauls sin? Fearing the people! Just like Peter Feared the Jews.
Saul’s sin was willfully disobedience to the Lord and was the results of fearing the people. I think as humans it is not abnormal to fear man but to fear man to the degree where it causes you to willfully disobey God is wrong and a snare.
>>>What is not uprightly? Not righteously, they were walking unrighteously. I don’t know how you can justify Peters actions here.
First I am not justifying Peter’s actions here at all. I am not sure where you get that. The Greek for “not uprightly” in this passage is “οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν” and means ‘not straight footed’.
>>>but this teaching of Christians cannot sin and if they do they forfiet Salavtion is forcing you into the position of allowing hypocrisy , fear and unrighteousness as I have shown above. I believe it is a very dangerous doctrine to hold and will cause many to do the opposite of what you hope– excuse sin!
First I don’t hold that Christians can’t sin but I do hold that if they sin they do forfeit salvation. And I think the scriptures will agree with that. James tells us if you offend in one point the law you are guilty of it all (Jas 2:10). Then Paul gives us a list of sins and tells us that “that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:21).” John tells us that some one that hates his brother is a murder and then tell us that “no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him” (1Joh 3:15). So it is the Word of God that tells us that a person that hates their brother doesn’t have eternal life. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t tell me a Christina can hate a brother and still be have eternal life when you have the Word of God clearly stating that he doesn’t.
Second holding this teaching in no way forces me into the position of allowing hypocrisy, fear, and unrighteousness. In my opinion holding the teaching that salvation is forfeited for willful sin puts harder judgment on the sin not a less judgment.
I stand against all actions that are rooted in hypocrisy, fear of man, and not walking straight footed. What Peter did was clearly wrong and he was rightly strongly rebuked for it. But whether Peter did what he did willfully knowing he was wrong or whether he had a serious lapse in judgment in the heat of the moment after a life time of influence against Gentiles I don’t feel like the account tells us clearly.
I don’t think it is incompatible to say that what Pete did was hypocrisy, not straight footed, and caused by the fear of man and at the same time to say if he had a serious lapse in judgment in the heat of the moment after a life time of influence against the Gentiles - that what he did was not sin.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Hello Bob,
I am one of the women that you spoke to in Tim Horton’s in Tillsonburg. I am always interested in looking at what other Christian brothers and sisters viewpoints are and prayerfully consider what they say. I am impressed with the plain-ness in which you write in. God’s Word is not meant to be difficult to understand but is spiritually discerned. God bless you and keep you until that day when Jesus returns to take His faithful Home.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Hi Kelly; Thank you. I guess I write plain because I am not very educated. I didn’t do very good in High School and if I remember right I just got a 65% pass each year. I was rebellious and had a substances abuse problem.
I love the Word of God and may times it blesses me so much I cry. It has changed my life is completely it is hard for me to believe it. I am a ex-crack head off the street. It is just like I am not the old Bob but that I am a new person. I guess that is what the Bible says. Glory!
I am not much for dogma that doesn’t do anything for our walk but I love the practical things in the Word of God. I know I get a blessing writing these short posts and if you can get a bit of a blessing from reading them that I say all glory be to Jesus!