Is error in doctrine always sin?

[*AQuietPlace*]

This was an interesting blog post. What do you think?


A Captive Conscience
from Challies Dot Com - Informing the Reforming by Tim

Is error in doctrine always sin? It's a question I've reflected on in the past and one that I think is well worth considering, even if just for a few moments. While this may seem like a petty issue, a petty question, I believe it is an issue of some consequence since it will necessarily impact how I relate to fellow Christians who differ from me on secondary issues. If I feel that my friend is being sinful by teaching that we should baptize infants, I will want to go to great lengths to show him that he is sinning and to see him repent and correct his error. But if I believe that his belief in infant baptism is something less than sin, I can appreciate his conviction while not feeling the need to emphasize repentance and correction. Do you see the difference there? One understanding compels me to emphasize correction while the other allows me to find unity.

Now it is obvious that there are times when differences in doctrine reflect sin. A person who preaches that Jesus Christ is something other than divine is teaching an awful and divisive heresy and that error is sinful, pure and simple. 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. But what happens when the error deals with issues of lesser consequence? What happens when one teacher preaches a sermon defending the baptism of believers while another preaches a sermon defending the baptism of children? Obviously one of the two men must be wrong. But is one of them being sinful in teaching what is wrong? Or think of an issue like eschatology where two very fine and godly men may have completely different understandings of the end times. When they teach their differing conclusions, is one of them actually being sinful?

Here are three principles I've found useful and relevant while thinking about this issue.

First, it is clear to me that, regardless of whether or not error in doctrine is always sin, error in doctrine is always a consequence of sin. When the Lord returns and we join him in heaven, there will no longer be disagreements about doctrine. Disagreements about baptism, eschatology and other issues will be put away once and for all. And we all look forward to that day.

Second, there are certain consequences of sin for which we are not judged. For example, an illness that incapacitates for a day or a lifetime is a consequence of sin but God does not hold us responsible for such illnesses or hold us morally culpable for them. If there was no sin in the world there would be no illness. The boy who is born with a mental disability suffers a lifelong consequence of sin, but not one for which God holds him culpable. So we can suffer consequences of sin without being punished for them.

Third, God has given each of us a conscience and it seems that a conscience is only necessary if there exist such things as times where we need to make a judgment call rather than relying on what we know to be perfectly clear from Scripture. While I am convinced that the Bible is just as clear as it needs to be for us to understand it, human reasoning has been so incapacitated by our fall into sin that we are prone to make a mess of things, bringing confusion where there ought to be clarity. And it is here, on the issue of conscience, that I have paused the longest. The Bible tells us that we are to heed the conscience and that to violate it is to commit sin.

Of course the conscience is developed as we grow in godliness and as we learn to heed the Word of God. John MacArthur says "When we live in the Spirit, walk in the Spirit, and obey the Spirit, we can trust our conscience because it is under divine control. The Spirit's perfect prompting will either commend or condemn what we are doing or are planning to do." But still, two men who have dedicated a lifetime to humbly studying the Scripture can arrive at radically different conclusions. And God tells both of these men to heed conscience. It seems to me that God, in his sovereignty, has decreed here that some of the consequences of sin must be settled by conscience and that he will not hold people accountable (or as accountable) for what they do based on a conscience that is informed by Scripture. One of Martin Luther's more famous sayings is "My conscience is captive to the Word of God." That is something we are all to strive for and something the Bible commands. Is this not God's admission that there will be times that we disagree, where we find the Word unclear, and times that we will have to heed conscience?

And really this is as far as I've been able to go with this question. I am encouraged to see Christians uniting across lines that were once considered too wide to cross. Together for the Gospel is an excellent example of Christian leaders being willing and eager to put aside secondary differences for the sake of the gospel. While they disagree on many fine points of doctrine and even many very important points of doctrine, they all hold tightly to what matters most--the gospel message. This is one line that would be too great to cross but one, within which, there is opportunity to practice humility and fraternity. They join together not to condemn, not to argue, but to affirm the common bond of gospel unity. Though never downplaying differences, neither do they seek to bind one another's conscience. And this, I think, is how God wants us to be as just a foretaste of that greater, more complete, perfect unity to come.

[Aquila]

I question if anyone has 100% of their "doctrine" absolutely correct. Certainly there is room for being sincerely mistaken about various issues.

[Timmy]

[NotforSale]

This really is a great question, at least regarding the forgivable aspect of humans trying to conceive God and His Will or plan. In the past, I've considered the following; if God can and will forgive man for his failures or shortcomings, does man's failed attempt in Religion qualify as a forgivable sin?

I don't see how this "Sin" is in any way exempt. It is beyond clear that we wrestle with who is right about Faith and Truth, and this will always be. In reality, absolutes based off of the unseen will always trouble us. Relying on Ancient Manuscripts that have proven flaw, considering that a majority of humanity never had a Bible, and that History has shown the diabolical actions of the Church and those of Faith using the Spectral World to demand obedience, we will squander forever in trying to decide "Who is Right?"

If we are not forgiven for this "Doctrinal Sin", I don't see much hope for anybody.

Consider the prayer I have uttered myself; "God, I'm trying to my best to Trust the absolutes of my Faith, but have found grave error in some of them. With all of the opinions out there about You and what we must do to please You, please find a place in your deep well of mercy for a man who struggles to understand Someone as Great as You are. The Book I've been given has so many questionable things in it, and my heart is heavy because everyone thinks they have their special take on the Bible. Sometimes, I'm left speechless and unable to trust the many systems of Organized Faith on our Planet."

I don’t think I’m alone with my feelings about the many ideas about God that come from a Book that portrays God in whatever light we want. From a killer to a lover, the Bible leaves no stone unturned, and maybe this is why we will always “Sin” with doctrine. A Father that throws his wayward children into a pit of unending torment does fit with some, but no longer with me. This and other Doctrinal sins may be in my heart, and I seek His forgiveness if my concepts have fallen into error. I’m not too sure if God will give me a chance to give my statement when I die, but if He does; my reasons for belief, trust, hope, forgiveness, and love are not empty ones.

[Sam]

St. Augustine is alleged to have said:

In necessariis unitas,
in dubiis libertas,
in omnibus caritas

which can be translated as

in things essential unity,
in things doubtful liberty,
in all things love

That has since been repeated by others, including Apostolics.

I agree with that but there are probably big differences here as to what doctrines fall into each of those categories.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Sam

St. Augustine is alleged to have said:

In necessariis unitas,
in dubiis libertas,
in omnibus caritas

which can be translated as

in things essential unity,
in things doubtful liberty,
in all things love

That has since been repeated by others, including Apostolics.

I agree with that but there are probably big differences here as to what doctrines fall into each of those categories.

Yep! Is it essential to know what is essential?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Yep! Is it essential to know what is essential?

and, what I would consider essential is probably different than others (perhaps even on this forum) would consider essential.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Yes, that is where the argument lies... what is essential doctrine?

So many opinions on that.

[Sam]

What I consider essential

--Belief in the deity of Christ
Jesus said, "If ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins" John 8:24.
Both trinitarians and oneness believe in this. We believe that YHWH of the OT came to us in the person of Jesus.

--Belief in the humanity of Jesus, that He is the Anointed One (Christ) come in flesh.
2 This is how we know if they have the Spirit of God: If a person claiming to be a prophet acknowledges that Jesus Christ came in a real body, that person has the Spirit of God. 3 But if someone claims to be a prophet and does not acknowledge the truth about Jesus, that person is not from God. Such a person has the spirit of the Antichrist, which you heard is coming into the world and indeed is already here. 1 John 4:2-3
Both trinitarians and oneness believe this

--Belief that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 defines the Gospel (Good News) as preached by the Apostle Paul. There he says:
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

He stated to the assemblies in Galatia that if anyone (human or angel) preached any Gospel other than the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, he cursed (damned) that person. See Galatians 1:6-8

I would consider the above to be essential.

Among nonessentials I would list
--the amount of water used in baptism
--the words spoken in baptism
--the words we use to describe our particular understanding of the Deity and humanity of Jesus Christ
--whether wine or grape juice is used in communion
--whether leavened or unleavened bread are to be used in communion
--if footwashing is to be practiced literally in 2010
--if the holy kiss is to be practiced literally in 2010
--if the term "Reverend" can be used for humans
--animal sacrifices, levirate marriage, circumcision, and tithing which were all practiced before the law of Moses, incorporated into the law of Moses, and done away with under the New Covenant
--observance of any sabbath, feast day, or Lord's day
--preterism, dispensationalism,
--intercession of the (dead) saints
--devotion to Mary the Theotokos
--soul sleep or consciousness after death
--clothing rules and hair length rules
--jewelry, cosmetics, deodorant,
--the use of medicine, doctors, hospitals, vitamins, food supplements
--caffeine, nicotine, sugar, alcohol, chocolate, etc

[Jermyn Davidson]

No.

I don't think error in doctrine is always sin.

So this leads me to another question (not hijacking this thread as this is on topic.)


Catholics that are filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues-- are these our brothers and sisters in Christ? Will they be dancing around The Throne with us?


See where this get tricky?