A Guide to Christian Theology - Lesson 32

Well, one more part here as we talk about sin, there's so much more we could do. But one of these is really important and it's that what's the definition of sin? This is a place where you get theological tribes with different definitions. In a Calvinistic tribe, sin is anything that falls short of the level of God in act, thought or character. Let me do it from the handout here. Calvinistic view, any falling short of God's standard in act, thought or character. So if I act against God's character, that's sin. If I fantasize but don't act, so to be lusting, I don't go and put my hands on her, but I think about it, that's still sin. But they step one further, in character. And so something that is different from the character God has defined for us that is sin.

Where this comes out in point of significance is the current controversy with same sex attraction stuff. If you're keeping track of some of the stuff that's going on, there's a famous conference that's happened about four times called Revoice. Revoice.us. And it's a group of same-sex attracted Christians who are saying, "Yes, we're same-sex attracted." Some will define themselves as gay Christians who follow the sexual ethic of Jesus. And they're saying, "Yes, we're same sex attracted. Our attractions are disordered but not sinful. They're disordered desires, but they're not sinful desires." Others, and I won't name names here, maybe I should because I have an opinion in this, but I won't are saying, "No, no, no. If your attraction is not for an opposite sex person, that's not just a disordered desire, that's a sinful desire."

And if you accept that and gather together in the Revoice conference and say, "Yes, I'm a same sex attracted, but I follow the ethic of Jesus therefore I do not fantasize or act on it, that same sex attraction," then they're saying, "No, the desire itself is sin." And that's where the controversy comes out. If you're in certain circles, and I work in those circles, it's a hot topic. Is the same sex attraction itself sinful? Or put in other sex, this isn't particularly me, but I'm a man, I've got some levels of that. If I find myself attracted to women other than my wife in a romantic sexual kind of way, is that attraction a sinful attraction or is that a disordered attraction?

And the many Calvinists say, "Well, that attraction is sinful even though I don't fantasize it. Even though I don't act on, it's still sinful because I've got the attraction." I'd say, "No. If I don't fantasize and don't act on it. The attraction itself is disordered but not sinful." So that's a controversy that goes on. It's about the definition of sin. Calvinist definition is anything that falls short of God's standard in act, thought or character. Wesleyan theology says, "No, no, no, no, no. Sin is a willful transgression of the known law of God. Sin is the willful transgression of the known law of God." This is Wesley's famous definition. It's the willful transgression of the known law of God. Now, that's not encouraging ignorance because we always should be pursuing holiness, certainly from Wesleyan perspective, but it's not sin if I do it out of stupidity. It's stupid, but it's not sinful.

Now there's a whole debate behind that, but it's the definition of sin. Is sin going against God in act, thought or also character? Is sin only willful transgressions of the known law of God and other things can be stupid but not sinful? And there's a big long debate. Is sin rule breaking or is it also violation of relationship? And I think sin is more fundamentally violation of relationship and the rules come as a result of the relationship. So where I would come out on that kind of definition, remember I've already said that sin is defining for myself what's good, bad as a fundamental definition of sin. And I think attraction or character is a disordered desire, not a sinful desire. But when I start fantasizing it quickly becomes that way.

So I'm going to be doing a premarital session right after our recording session today with Eric and Cynthia. And they're just a short distance from their wedding and I'm delighted to have a piece of their wedding. I'll get to do a prayer blessing over this marvelous couple. They're both friends and then they've met each other and made eyes at each other and I get to with them their pre-marital. I love it. Love it, love it, love it. Eric, guy, sat with me recently and said, "Gary, what do I do with my lustful thoughts towards Cynthia?" And I said, "Don't act on them." "Oh, no, no, no, I'm not going to do that." And he won't because I'll kill him if he does. So would Cynthia. No, he's not even going that direction. He's a good man.

"Don't fantasize." But I said, "Eric, that's a good desire out of time because your wedding is September 24th and it's going to be amazing. At that point it'll be in every sense a blessable desire. Right now it's a good desire, but out of time. It's a disordered or dis-timed desire. So when that comes up, what you say to yourself, 'Good desire, not now.' And know and to Jesus, you see her as your fiance, not your wife." And he totally bought it. So he likes the idea. "I'm deeply attracted to this woman and I want to have sexual relations with her and I will, but not now. And I'm not going to fantasize it now because I want to build a beautiful thing." See, that's a good way to do things seems to me. And James, I think, does that and he talks when desires are hatched they become sin.

So it seems to me that there's a difference between attraction or character, desires and actual sin which you start fantasizing and acting. So I try to come out on that. I do think there's a difference between willful sin and stupid thing. So one of the things I talk about is degrees of sin. And for many, many, many Protestants, they're going to say there are no degrees of sin. All sin is sin. And they go to Matthew chapter 5, which is a good place to go. Matthew chapter 5, and they go to verse 27. "Have you heard it said you should not commit adultery? Well, it's one of the 10 commandments. I tell you, anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." They feel right there Jesus saying that lust and adultery, same thing. And I say, "Do you really believe that?" So we should like...

No, I don't think you believe that. I don't have to unpack it. I don't think though what Jesus saying. What the Pharisees are saying, "I'm not committing adultery so I'm okay." He's saying, "Yeah, that's true. You're keeping the 10 commandments. You're not keeping the Abrahamic righteous behind that. You're not respecting women. You're objectifying and fantasizing." So when you stop there and with your tongue dragging the ground in lust, that is sin. You're not okay because you didn't commit adultery. He's saying it's sin. He's not saying it's the same sin. So where in the world would I go to say that sin has degrees? Well, I'm glad you asked. Did you ask? Matthew 11, 20?

Well, actually further, go to 23. Matthew 11:23 on, "And you Capernaum, will you be lifted to heavens? No. You'll go down to Hades for if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom it would've remained to this day. But I tell you, it would be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." So Capernaum is a center of Jesus's miracles in the early part of His ministry and they reject Him and He says, "It's worse for you than for Sodom," which is the epic bad guys, one of them in the Old Testament. That's degrees of punishment. And I think it's because of degrees of sin. They have rejected Messiah. Sodom did not do that. So I think it's degrees of sin.

I've got other things, your hand up, but look at one more. If I go to John chapter 19, John 19 is Jesus before Pilate and He won't talk to Pilate. Pilate gets ticked, "Don't you realize the power to free you or crucify you?" And Jesus gives a profound answer, "You'd have no power over me if it not given to you from above. I'm here by God's commissioning. Therefore, the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin. The one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." Okay, who handed Jesus over to Pilate? It wasn't Judas. Judas handed Him over to Caiaphas. Caiaphas handed Herod, Herod sent Him back to Caiaphas and Caiaphas handed Him over to Pilate.

Why is Caiaphas guilty of a greater sin than Pilate who's crucifying a man he knows to be innocent against the advice his wife who's seen a vision from heaven for minor political survival thing? Has he committed a great sin? Horrific sin. And He says, "Caiaphas has committed a greater sin." Why? He rebelled against office and knowledge because he's a higher priest. Yeah. And He didn't say greater consequence, He says greater sin. So I will suggest to you that there are absolute degrees of sin. Now, all sin is sin and that's Jesus' lesson of the Pharisees. You can't say, "I'm okay because I don't," or, "You do really bad things and I don't, so I'm a better guy than you are." That's not the way to do it. But there are degrees of sin and I think we need to do that because frankly adultery's way worse than lust.

And I'm not saying lust is okay. The guy's doing porn and all the stuff associated with that in his basement is a terrible sinner. But the guy who's gotten grabbing women and do it to him is worse sinner in my judgment. And I can go through all the categories, but I think there are degrees of sin and I think it's important that we say that in our pastoral ministry. But we also say all sin is sin. The other question is how sinful are fallen humans? And this ends up being a pretty significant question when it comes to salvation and what's going there. So I've got a couple of categories here. One of them is pervasive depravity and pervasive or total depravity means everything I do or am is tainted by sinfulness.

Depravity, and then the Calvinist says its total depravity but better pervasive depravity. Anthony Hoekema, profound Calvinist said this, "Everything I do or am is tainted by sinfulness. My best actions," if you believe in total depravity, "My best actions still have sinfulness is a part of them." That's not debatable. Pretty much everybody in evangelicalism believes that though the degree of depravity may be debated. The second was more so and that is spiritual total inability. This is a debated thing. And what's happening here is when we say spiritual inability, what we're saying is everybody would agree, "I cannot save myself. I can't change my fundamental preference for sin or self and restore my relationship with God." Everybody agrees on that. I can't repair the relationship with God from my side.

In that sense, spiritual inabilities universally agreed to. But there's another lesson where it's not agreed to. And that is if I hear the gospel and the call to repent and believe, do I need a prior work of God before I can say yes? So I hear the gospel, "Will you accept Jesus as your Lord? Will you repent and believe and join the community of Christ?" Calvinists are saying that we have spiritual inability. We cannot do that unless God does a prior work of grace in my heart. Wesleyans will agree that I cannot respond positively to the gospel unless God does a prior work of grace in my heart. Classic Arminians are going to say, "God doesn't have to do a prayer work. I already have that level of freedom and I can say yes to the gospel and God doesn't have to do anything to make that possible." It's a theological debate and it turned to be fairly significant in how we understand the gospel.

Calvinist says, "You can't respond to the gospel and you need grace. And what they say is you need effectual grace. You need transforming grace." Wesleyans say, "You need grace and God gives you enabling grace. In fact, He gives everybody enabling grace." Arminians say, "You don't need a special grace, you already have sufficient ability to say yes to the gospel on your own." It's an insider's debate, but it ends up being a place where people throw stones at each other. Let me say it one more time. Calvinists believe in spiritual inability in the sense that I can't say yes to the gospel. Everybody believes I have spiritual ability in the sense that I can't repair the relationship with God from my side. But Calvinists say, "I cannot accept the gospel without a prior work of God."

Wesleyans say, "I cannot accept the gospel without a prior work of God." So they agree with that, but they disagree with the nature of the grace. Calvinists say that, "Grace is effective for the elect." Wesleyans say, "It's enabling for everyone." And we talk about, so triology unpack that a little bit further. Arminians say, "I don't need a special work of grace because I already have enough ability in myself by God's common grace that I can say yes and receive the gospel. God doesn't have to do anything in me prior to me being able." So they deny spiritual inability in the sense I can't say yes to the gospel. So it's a complex insider argument that has surprising level of hostility associated with it. And that's how sinful are we.

Calvinists have a more negative view of the fallen person than Wesleyans who have a negative view. But our meanings have not quite as negative view, but everybody agrees everything I am and do is tainted by sin. Everybody agrees that I cannot, from my side of the house, repair the relationship with God. It has to be an initiative of God. But we disagree on does God need to do something in me before I can say yes to the gospel. Arminians say, "I don't need anything." Wesleyans and Calvinists say, "I do." But then Wesleyans and Calvinists disagree on what's necessary. And we can disagree on these things. Please do it charitably and recognize and then open your Bible. But we'll do that. And you smile and say, "I think I disagree." Can we talk? Okay. Questions, comments?

So you mentioned that there's a degree of sin. Do you think that there's a degree of consequence related to that sin or-

Not necessarily.

Is there, for the one who denies Christ, hell or a degree of consequence or no?

Are there degrees in hell?

Yeah.

Yes, I think there are. Yeah. It's worse for Sodom in the day of judgment. Sorry, worse Capernaum than Sodom in the day of judgment. I think there are degrees of punishment and hell. I really believe that.

Do you think there's degrees of reward in heaven?

At least in the millennium, yes. And I'm pre-millennium. Progressive dispensational pre-millennial. I think there are different levels of reward at least in the millennium. I don't know about the new heaven, new earth to say anything about that. Yeah, I do believe that. The idea we're all equal, that's an American thing. It's not a biblical thing in my judgment. So yeah, if I disagree with some of the details of Dante, I think he was on the right idea. And he had courage enough to put the current Pope in the very pit of hell, which he probably deserved to be in.

Thanks.

That gets you dead, by the way.