| Home | Our Hope | |
| Bible Study |
|
May 26, 2024 |
| How Many Strikes Until You're Out | ||
This study was produced from the 2017-03-19 Intentional study on this site, for inclusion in a published volume … and as a test of the direction of that volume. It was rejected - probably because liberals want to be positive and not deal in the negativity of sin.
For a time this study was made available on the web-site BibleDefender.org. As the life of that site appears about to be ending, I have moved it to this site.
We might wonder, "How many sins are too many?" or "Have I committed so many sins that God has rejected me?".
Some people have adopted the notion that, if you keep on sinning, there is some point where Jesus says, "That's it, you're out". There isn't any Biblical basis for an accumulation of sins that causes a person to lose their salvation.
There are others who say once-saved-always-saved which means there is nothing you could ever do that would cause you to lose your salvation. There is also a hyper-grace version of that which says, "God's grace covers you no matter what you do". The Bible contends against both of these views.
If we can lose our salvation, we still have the question - when does that happen?
It turns out the Bible is pretty clear on that. There are two correct answers, "1 sin" and "an infinite number of sins". So now we just need to figure out why there are two answers.
John clearly says that there are two types of sin but we'll see that people have had trouble understanding that.
If a man sees his brother who sins a sin that is not worthy of death, let him ask, and life will be given to him for those who are not sinning unto death; for there is mortal sin; I do not say that a man should pray for this. 17 For every evil is sin, and there is sin that is not mortal. (1 John 5:16-17)
There are several points we can pull from these verses.
This ability to pray and have someone forgiven is a superpower that Christians possess.
When John says "death," he means spiritual death, which the Bible speaks of as separation from God.
John says there are different types of sins, mortal and not mortal. John isn't teaching something new to Christianity. The same concept exists in Judaism, which John was raised in. It's about how God views things.
The Catholic church took this verse to mean that there were greater and lesser kinds of sin, which they called mortal and venial sins.
According to Roman Catholicism, a venial sin is a lesser sin that does not result in a complete separation from God and eternal damnation in Hell as an unrepented mortal sin would. (Wikipedia - Venial)
That thinking is not correct. But, having determined that there were greater and lesser sins, they took it upon themselves to determine how to decide which sins were the big ones. The Catholic Church did not build this understanding on the Bible, which is hardly a surprise, but instead, they tried to classify sins themselves, partly based on severity, as perceived by the church.
Although the Roman Catholic Church does not provide an exhaustive list of mortal sins, breaking the Ten Commandments, suicide, induced abortion, masturbation, rape, and divorce are well-known examples. Additionally, some mortal sins are considered so severe that the church punishes them with excommunication. These include apostasy (deliberate renunciation of the faith) and the desecration of the elements of the Eucharist. (britannica.com - cardinal-sin)
Their three criteria for a mortal sin are: Grave Matter (severity), Full Knowledge (awareness), and Deliberate Consent (freely chosen). This means, for example, that stealing something of low value is a venial sin but something of high value is a mortal sin. The problem is obvious - who decides value? The question this raises is whether God cares about the value, or does he care about something else.
When the Reformation came in the 1500s, the Protestants were no better equipped to understand what John says in that verse. They saw that the Catholic Church's criteria for mortal and venial sins were entirely man-made. The reformer, Calvin, rejected the idea as a Catholic Church invention. He was bothered by their attempts to classify sins and threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Mostly the Protestant churches have chosen essentially to ignore what John said above. The topic is never discussed and they believe there is only one kind of sin.
A web search shows the topic to be mainly a Catholic issue. Lutherans accept that there are both kinds but consider mortal sins to be unrepented venial sins. Others view mortal sins as the continuation of venial sins into a habit. The Bible doesn't support anything like that.
Those few Protestant authors who deal with the topic often put together embarrassingly bad interpretations.
We take the "death" mentioned [by John] here to be physical death, not eternal death in hell. When a believer continues in unrepentant sin, he will eventually reach the point when God may decide to remove him from this world1.
The more you think about that the more ridiculous it becomes2.
Most modern Protestant laity have never heard that there might be a difference in sins. None-the-less, the concept is very Biblical, with New Testament support.
What we'll see is that the problem isn't the sin, it's the heart of the sinner. The sin just shows the heart of the sinner. Even then, sins can be internal and therefore unseen to others, so the sin only reveals the heart of the sinner … to the sinner.
The following Old Testament verses have a word in common.
If [the anointed priest] sins unintentionally in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, … (Leviticus 4:2)
When a leader sins and unintentionally does any one of all the things which the Lord his God has commanded not to be done, and he becomes guilty, … (Leviticus 4:22)
Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and becomes guilty, … (Leviticus 4:27)
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and even part of Joshua describe the laws and the sacrifices that atoned for sin, but they only refer to unintentional sins. If a sin was committed intentionally there was no sacrifice.
We know those sacrifices were ineffectual in atoning for sin but they were required and instructive. Through them, God showed there was, as yet, no way to restore the relationship between man and God in those cases. A man would wear the guilt of that sin for as long as he lived.
That doesn't mean he would never be forgiven by God. He could repent (turn away from the evils done and turn back to God) and ask for forgiveness and be forgiven but there would still be that debt owed to God and that guilt. God speaks about this through Ezekiel.
"Cast away from you all your transgressions [law breaking] which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord God. "Therefore, repent and live." (Ezekiel 18:31-32)
God is saying it was possible to repent of intentional sins, for which there was no sacrifice, and still have everlasting life.
The truth is that every one of them committed intentional sins at some point in their lives. The Apostle Paul says that he was killed by lust before he became a Christian.
The people of that time knew they could be forgiven, otherwise there would be no point in living after an intentional sin. Yet they also knew the guilt of a sin they could not atone for and a separation from God they could not fix.
Therefore, know brothers, that by this one, the forgiveness of sins is preached to you. 39 And all who believe in this one are justified of all things from which you cannot be justified by the Law of Moses. (Acts 13:38,39)
Now we understand how it can be true that there can be two types of sins. They differ by the intent of the heart, whether it was an intentional violation or unintentional.
So now we need to understand the difference between intentional and unintentional. The unintentional sins are done because you didn't know they were wrong, or you had no plan to do them and they were accidental. Killing a person could be intentional (murder - 6th commandment) or unintentional. For example, throwing a rock at a tree and someone steps out from behind the tree and is struck and killed. That's unintentional.
There is something important to understand from what the Bible says about unintentional sins.
If his sin which he has committed is made known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without defect, for his sin which he has committed. (Leviticus 4:28)
You could (and still can) sin so unintentionally that you would be unaware that you had sinned. For such unintentional sins, whether you knew it was a sin or not, it was.
Intentional sins are different that way. They are done with the knowledge and awareness that they were wrong but with a determination to do them anyway. They are actions that are defiant toward God, whether we see it that way or not. At their root they are idolatry - obeying ourselves over God.
As an example, I knew a Christian man whose marriage was in trouble. They weren't getting along at all. There was no talk of adultery on the part of either one. As he considered divorce, he carefully read the Bible. In the end, he said, "I know God hates divorce but I think God loves me more than he hates sin", and he got the divorce and later remarried.
He made up a little story to ease his conscience because he knew he was doing wrong. If that story he created was true it could be used to excuse any sin, over and over. It's a license to sin. People are amazing in that they can lie to themselves … and then believe it.
Another example comes from the Bible. In the Garden of Eden, the snake makes sure of two things:
An intentional sin cannot be done accidentally or thoughtlessly. It takes a little time to form an intention that has considered what God says is right but has chosen to do wrong. Here are some synonyms of intentional that may make it clearer: resolved, determined, and even hell-bent, which seems appropriate.
Therefore, as we see so often, it is a matter of where the heart is, and God sees the heart.
The biggest problem with intentional sin is repentance. What words are you going to take to God? You can't say "oops", because it wasn't a mistake, you did it intentionally. You can't say "it just happened", because you knew what you were doing. You can't say "I didn't know it was wrong", because you did know. You can't say "I'll never do it again", because you don't know the future. All you can do is humble your idolatrous self and throw yourself on his mercy. That will be enough.
David speaks of his intentional sin of adultery with Bathsheba.
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is evil in Your sight (Psalm 51:2-4)
For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; you are not pleased with burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. (Psalm 51:16-17)
In these verses David recognizes there is nothing he can do to atone for what he has done. When he says "You do not delight in sacrifice" he is saying he would pile up sacrifice on sacrifice if that would please God and remove his sins. But God does not delight in sacrifices.
The sacrifices had a particular purpose, symbolically dealing with unintentional sin. They did not earn anything from God. There was no sacrifice for intentional sin. Piling up sacrifices, meant for unintentional, sin could never cover intentional sin.
David can only ask for forgiveness and for a sacrifice he can only offer brokenness and contrition (remorse, repentance). That is a sacrifice God wants.
Even for unintentional sins, having to live with unatoned sin hanging over your head was a common situation in Old Testament times because it might be some time before you could get to the temple for a sacrifice. I don't think we appreciate the freedom we have under this covenant.
Why was there no sacrifice for the worst sins, the intentional sins? The great thinkers of Judaism struggled with this question. Why was there no way to restore the relationship with God? We understand the reason now; the sacrifices were symbolic (though required) and there was no sacrifice great enough. Therefore, the Old Covenant was incomplete and showed that something was missing and yet to come. That was the sacrifice of God himself, in the form of Jesus.
We are used to the idea that the benefit of Jesus' sacrifice travels into the future to us. In the same way, it travels into the past as well. There were many who had repented and been forgiven of intentional sins and died before Jesus' time. The debt they owed for those sins was paid for with his death.
Jesus' death served as the atonement for us when we believed. Therefore there was no need for a sacrifice for sin. His sacrifice was big enough to cover every sin that we had committed - no matter what.
As believers, unintentional sins are covered by his sacrifice. We are not separated from God by these. God still wants us to recognize the sin and ask for forgiveness. There may be cases when we don't realize that we have sinned. The Holy Spirit may bring those up later or God will settle them later.
An intentional sin, however, would separate us from God. Nowhere is that said more clearly than in Hebrews 10. Prior to these verses, the author of Hebrews has been encouraging believers to continue in the faith. Then he says this:
For if a man shall sin by his will after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice to be offered afterward for sins, 27 but that terrible judgment is ready and the zeal of fire which consumes the enemies. (Hebrews 10:26-27)
In saying "sin by his will" he means intentional (willful) sin. So his points are these. If you know the truth and you intentionally sin, nothing remains of Jesus' sacrifice to be applied to your sin or future sins. If you continue in that state, there is judgment ready for you. You have become an enemy of God (separated from God).
For if any violated the law of Moses, he would die without mercy by the mouth of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more do you think he will receive capital punishment, he who has trampled upon the Son of God and esteemed the blood of his covenant to be like that of every person, who also was made holy by it, and he has despised the spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:28-29)
He says it works just like it did in Moses' law and why would we think otherwise when intentional sin has treated the Son of God so badly. We may not think of it this way but God says here that the man who does this has:
If you think all sins are covered by grace, notice the last point.
Note that many translations say something more like "For if we go on sinning willfully." The translators are showing a continuous tense for the verb "to sin". They are conveying the idea that more than one willful sin is required.
The Greek verb can have a continuous tense but it doesn't make any sense in the context of these verses. For example, Paul relates willful sin to the Old Testament "for if any violated the law of Moses". Here he is plainly speaking of a singular event therefore the willful sin he speaks of must be singular.
Paul also says "There is no sacrifice to be offered afterward for sins". By that he means that Jesus' atoning sacrifice is not available - you are out of the kingdom. These words only make sense if they apply to every willful sin. The words don't support the idea that each willful sin reduces the atonement by some amount, eventually to 0. The words also don't support the idea that Jesus, after some undefined number of willful sins, says, "That's 2 hatreds and 1 adultery, that's it, now I'm offended; no more atonement for him."
In fact, "after having received the knowledge of the truth" indicates that it is the receiving of the knowledge of the truth that makes atonement for willful sin unavailable. Therefore, the first willful sin against that knowledge is unatoned.
Some translators are adding this continuous tense, probably because they like the wiggle room it seems to provide and because they don't understand.
So far we’ve seen that an intentional sin is worse than an unintentional sin. We've referred to intentional sin causing separation from God. Unintentional sin causes a rift, let's say. It still damages the relationship with God.
We’ve also seen that both types of sin can be forgiven. So it might seem that there is no meaningful difference between the two types. That is critically not true.
From what we've seen so far, it shouldn't be surprising that it is the Old Testament that explains this. Ezekiel 18 covers the idea of who is responsible for sins. As part of that, it also says what happens when someone turns to God or turns away from God. That's our area of interest.
But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. (Ezekiel 18:21-22)
When it says "turns away from" it means "turns his back to it." This means:
All of the past offenses will not be remembered by God. You don’t need to remember them and make a list so you can be forgiven for each. God has forgiven you, not the sins. The sins died with the old man; a new man has been born.
This chapter also has an example of changing from righteous to unrighteous.
But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die. (Ezekiel 18:24)
Just as when the unrighteous deeds are forgotten when a person turns to righteousness, all the righteous deeds a person has done are forgotten when he turns to unrighteousness.
This is the cost of intentional sin. Every good thing done is lost. The person must start over again.
Losing everything and starting over is still better than eternal torment.
We might interpret the verses we've seen as indicating that the moment an intentional sin is committed, then a person is separated from God as an unbeliever and the reward he had coming is irretrievably lost. We see something in the parable of the Prodigal Son that explains how that works.
And after a few days his younger son gathered everything that was coming to him and he went (Luke 15:12)
It is a sin at the moment the son demands, "Give me the portion that befalls me from your estate." He has no claim on his father's estate until his father has died. In a way, the son is saying, "Father, I want the part of the estate I would get if you died today." If the son changed his mind after that, he would still have sinned against his father.
The son has a short time to think about this sin and to repent and decide not to leave. We also have a short time afterward to think and determine if we intended to knowingly, willfully reject God. We do things rashly sometimes. God knows that, and he is prepared to forgive us for those as though they were unintentional. If we repent and turn back, no harm, no foul. If we decide to go through with it, then we own it. For example, adultery doesn't happen in a flash. There is time to think about it. Divorce especially doesn't happen in a flash. The slow-moving courts provide much time for thinking.
At the beginning I said there were two correct answers, "1 sin" and "an infinite number of sins". We now see why. No matter the number of unintentional sins, they are forgiven. Even 1 intentional sin, however, results in the loss of salvation. This is because that sin says, "not your will, but mine."
1 "Does the Bible teach mortal and venial sin?" https://www.gotquestions.org/mortal-sin-venial.html
2 This thinking results from the once-saved-always-saved false teaching. It contains the idea that a person can be a believer and also reject God. In this case, it produces a need for God to kill former believers when he would not kill unbelievers. Knowing, from his own eyes, that this is not true, the author qualifies his statement with "God may" which disconnects it from if-then causality. That completely invalidates his interpretation that John is talking about physical death.