Added to the “and other stupid statements series.”

During my ordination, one of the questions that I was asked by a seminary professor was “Are all sins equal in the sight of God?” I hesitated. Not because I did not have a strong opinion on this, but because I was not sure what the answer was that he was looking for. Are all sins equal in the sight of God? My ordination may have depended on the answer.

It is very common within popular evangelicalism to answer this question in the affirmative. This was one of the main assumptions in a book that I just recommended last week. Most find this theological concept very appealing and accept it, I am afraid to say, without doing much homework.

I think this tendency to assume that all sins are equal in the sight of God comes by means of three influences.

1) A reaction by Protestants against the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal sins (sins that kill justifying grace) and venial sin (sins of a lesser nature that do not kill justifying grace).

2) A tendency within our evangelistic church culture to express common ground with unbelievers—i.e., if all sins are equal in God’s sight, then your sin is not worse than any other. This way we are not coming across as judgmental or condescending.

3) Some biblical passages that have been interpreted in such a way (discussed below).

I don’t believe, however, that all sin is equal in God’s sight. I do believe that telling people that it is does serious damage to people’s understanding of the character of God and of the seriousness of certain sins. There are many reasons for this, but let me start with a reductio ad absurdum and them move to a biblical argument.

I often ask people who say that all sin is equal in the sight of God if they live according to their theology. Think about this. If all sin is really equal in the sight of God, and one really believes this, then God’s consternation and anger will be equal for whatever sin we commit. Equally important is the fact that our relational disposition before God should suffer equally from the conviction of the Holy Spirit for all sins. Most Christians understand what it means to have a conscience weighed down by unrepentant sin. But this weighing down normally only comes from those sins that we perceive to be more severe. If it is true, however, that all sin is equal in the sight of God and one actually lived according to that theology, then they should be just as troubled spiritually and just as repentant before God when they break the speed limit as when they commit adultery. After all, breaking the speed limit, even by 1 mph, is breaking the law and breaking the law is sin (Rom 13).

But nobody does this. We all see speeding down the road as water under the bridge of God. Apparently our conscience bears witness that it is not as bad as other things, even if we confess differently. Either that or the ability for our theology to actually affect the way we believe and think is non-functional in this situation. Continue Reading »

Ten years ago I had it all figured out. Theology was perfect. My passions filled with the progressively growing belief that I was going to make a difference—a big difference. If people were in need, I could fix it . . . or at least direct them to the right way to fix it. I had all the answers. I was sanctified and I was being sanctified . . . fast (like Ferrari fast).

Fast forward ten years…

Things are much different now. I don’t have quite as much figured out. Passions are secure, but have been nuanced by the scars of my soul. Things I was so confident about before now make my spirit blush with frustration, salted with a bit of shame and bitterness. Fixing things is not as easy as it seemed back then. Complications have arisen. People are complicated. I am complicated.

Last week as I discussed spiritual growth with a discouraged Christian gal, I began to see my own plight in hers. She could not understand why she is not a “good” person. “I have been a Christian for thirty years and I feel as if I am less sanctified now than ever. I don’t understand. Maybe I am not even saved.” Continue Reading »

I have had several requests lately for my “Red Stuff” sermon. Here it is.

What is “Red Stuff”? You will have to listen.

What is your “red stuff”?

 

 Red Stuff [44:06m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

I love Michael Patton’s authenticity.  The way he exposes his faults and failures in such a public forum is both refreshing and encouraging.  In fact, when I was writing my personal statement for my seminary application, I was so  strongly encouraged by his openness that I wrote it in a way I would not have but for his influence.  His exposures gave me courage to tell my story and expose cracks, showing how that can used in ministry.  It did make for a much richer personal statement, even though I recognized the crooked path I was painting.  It was exposing but I was relieved.

I don’t think I am alone.  For I have noticed an interesting phenomenon whenever he pours out his soul in a post such as this recent one, Uncle Lord. People began to open up.  You can almost hear the sighs of relief through the internet, sighs that have come from weary souls burdened with life’s pains, bottled up with angst over the possibility of exposure yet suddenly uncorked to reveal authentic expressions.  The relief echos “You too, Mike? Man I’m glad you said that because here is what I have going through…”  The relaxation soon turns to ministry, as people chime in with encouragements and prayers.  In some sense, I find myself surprised not only by Michael’s openess but more so by the unveiling of others.   And then I have to think about why I am surprised.

I believe the fall of man has much to do with our unwillingness to expose ourselves.  When Adam and Eve sinned, they immediately looked at each other and were embarrassed prompting the covering up of themselves (Genesis 3:7).  Then the unthinkable, they heard the rushing wind of an upset God coming towards them.  They ran for cover (Genesis 3:10).  They did not want to be exposed. Continue Reading »

I would love to see it. You think that I get in trouble?

Title of Martin Luther’s Post: “Sin Boldly”

Maybe that would be the title of his blog. Maybe that would be a post. One thing is for certain—Luther was a blogger before blogging was cool.

As you know, in blogging, one must continually be informative and/or provocative, otherwise don’t expect to have many hits. Luther would have chosen the latter nine times out of ten.

The principle in being provocative is to say something that seems outrageous (or at least out of the box of your readers). After this, you have to replant the issue. It is a scary thing to do. You are always second guessing yourself. “Should I have said that?” “Will people understand?” “Will people read beyond the first paragraph?” Your hope is that people will stick around long enough to give your provocation a chance to settle itself into some informative way.

I could see the first paragraph of one of Luther’s blogs:

“Seek out the society of your boon companions, drink, play, talk bawdy, and amuse yourself. One must sometimes commit a sin out of hate and contempt for the Devil, so as not to give him the chance to make one scrupulous over mere nothings…” (Martin Luther, Werke, XX, p.58)

Or how about this for a blog title: “Sin boldly”

Would you stick around to hear the rest? Of course you would. This is why Luther was such a charismatic and effective leader.

Love him or hate him, you cannot put Luther in any box.

Luther was certianly aware of sin and grace. Sin more so in his early years, sin and grace later. The above comments made by Luther are meant to provocatively communicate something much deeper. “Sin boldly . . .” as the statement goes, but it continues, “. . . but believe more boldly.” Luther did not care for self-righteousness much. He was continually attempting to make those who were satisfied in their own works to recognize their own utter depravity. It was not so much that he wanted people to sin with a since of comfort, but to recognize their sin, not being coy with its presence in their own life. In order to communicate this, he would often encourage people in this with over-the-top statements such as the ones given here. When we sin and play personal cover-up, grace becomes invisible. Yes, it is there, but without shaking its hand each day, we cannot see grace. We have to live with such a recognition of our brokenness that we are continually kneeling the foot of the Cross.

How often do we play cover-up with our sin, acting as if it is not that bad? We become so used to it that it is not bold in our lives, or we just manipulate and deny its presence. To sin boldly is the only way for us to find grace.

What do you all think about WWLB? Do you think is over-the-top communication is effective or does it do more harm than good?

Here is the situation: We are born with a propensity, bent, inclination to sin. Therefore, we cannot help but sin – it is our nature. Yet when we do act according to our nature and sin, we are held guilty by God and ultimately condemned to eternal punishment. Not only this, but we are already condemned for the sin of another – namely Adam – before we commit any personal sins. We are held guilty for something someone else did. Umm . . . Check please. I did not vote for this. I did not ask to be this way. I did not even have a chance. This seems unjust.

Continue Reading »

Continuing with our subject of the difficult doctrine of imputation, we now move to an interpretation of Romans 5. The question has come down to this: Is it possible that Adam’s sin has been credited or imputed to us in such a way that all men are born guilty of this sin of another before we ever exercise any personal sin. Evangelical Protestants and Catholics would say yes. Eastern Orthodox and Arminians would say no.  Continue Reading »

In the last post we discussed the problem of Original Sin, especially from an Evangelical Reformed perspective. Are we condemned for the sin of another. Let’s get some basic terminology down so that we can surf this wave with more balance.

Proposed three types of sin:

Personal Sin: Sins committed by the individual. All people have personal sin (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:10)

Inherited Sin: The physical and spiritual corruption which produces a bent and inclination toward sin and a natural enmity toward God (Eph. 2:3; John 8:44; Jer. 13:23; Ps. 51:5). This sin is mediated (inherited) directly from our parents.

Imputed Sin: God’s immediate declaration of guilt to every individual for the sin of Adam.  This sin is “imputed” (or credited) to all people as if they had committed the sin.

Here is where the traditions fall with regards to these three. Continue Reading »

The concept of “Original Sin” has long been a vital part of Christian Orthodoxy yet is being challenged and redefined by many in the Church today. Even conservatives are beginning to question the validity of the traditional Evangelical understanding of the doctrine asking questions of its legitimacy in its current form of understanding.

Perhaps John Calvin defines Original Sin most concisely as “The deprivation of a nature formerly good and pure.” More specifically, from a Reformed Evangelical perspective, it refers to the fall of humanity from its original state of innocence and purity to a state of corruption and guilt (distinguished later).  It is the cause of man’s translation from a state of unbroken communion before God to one of spiritual death and condemnation. Continue Reading »

In a previous post I put this question forward: Would Christ have died had he not been killed? The question is brought about by our pondering upon Christ’s identification with humanity and humanity’s identification with sin and death. Since Christ did not sin, and death is a result of sin, then wouldn’t it be systematic to believe that Christ would have lived forever in his unresurrected body had He not been 1) killed or 2) relinquished His spirit from His body? Continue Reading »