Is all sin equal?

[I Art Laughing]

I agree with what you said about "sin" and "transgression".....but, not "iniquity".

This is what I believe about iniquity:

Iniquity, as I see it is the faulty motive behind the omission or the commission of a lawless act (sin or transgression). If we are speaking of motive what is the root of it? Any motive that is not of God, any vain imagination that exalts itself above Him.

Primarily, it denotes "not an action, but the character of an action" (Oehler), and is so distinguished from "sin" (chaTTa'th).

I believe that is why we are warned:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; )Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
(2Co 10:3-6)

 

[I Art Laughing]

I would point to the first case of iniquity, was it an act? Or was it a wrong motive?

Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
(Eze 28:14-15)

I think this was the iniquity:

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
(Isa 14:13)

It was found IN Lucifer, in his heart. He had a haughty attitude, he wanted to go his own way, in variance from God. That was a perversion of what God had intended for him. Notice that it wasn't an action, it was a motive. He didn't actually do anything when he was cast down. (I don't think Lucifer could either transgress or sin in his position as the "covering cherub", he was covering God). I think iniquity is the motive behind the actual transgression or sin, I think it is the vain imagination that seeks to pervert God's perfect will, it's the conspiracy before the crime.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Iniquity, as I see it is the faulty motive behind the omission or the commission of a lawless act (sin or transgression). If we are speaking of motive what is the root of it? Any motive that is not of God, any vain imagination that exalts itself above Him.

I believe that is why we are warned:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; )Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
(2Co 10:3-6)

So are you saying that if you were to oversleep, and not do something good that you knew you should have done, you have the same heart's motive of hatefully, brutally murdering someone?

Both of those things are sins, but those two people could quite likely not have the same heart's motive. There are some sins that can't be done without total hate, or evil, and other sins that are done from literal weakness, or simple lack of discernment.

 

[1234321]

Sin in Hebrew means "an offense."

Iniquity in Hebrew means "perversity."

Abomination in Hebrew means "morally disgusting" (adj.,) "abhorrence (n.,) especially idolatry."

Transgression means "revolt."


So, it seems "sin" is the general term for the latter three words. Sin can apply to a transgression, abomination or iniquity. However, transgression, abomination, and iniquity are distinctively different actions (that may have consequential overlap.) What Heylel, commonly called "Lucifer," did was iniquity. It is perverse to try and be like the Most High God when you were created by Him. It is tantamount to the pot magnifying itself as a human potter, and claiming to be capable of producing pots.

Perverse: 1. (of a person or their actions) Showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences

2. Contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice

3. (of a verdict) Against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law

4. Sexually perverse

Heylel's claims certainly fall into definition 1 of perverse.

 

[I Art Laughing]

So are you saying that if you were to oversleep, and not do something good that you knew you should have done, you have the same heart's motive of hatefully, brutally murdering someone?

Both of those things are sins, but those two people could quite likely not have the same heart's motive. There are some sins that can't be done without total hate, or evil, and other sins that are done from literal weakness, or simple lack of discernment.

If you didn't do something that God wanted you to do because you "overslept" is that obedience or disobedience? What was the motive? Not loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, that is falling short of the mark (sin).

It might also fall underneath the definition of sloth. Sin causes separation from God.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Reply by Chaz
God says that the wages of sin is death. If some sin is different than others, then why does it no specify which sin leads to death and which doesn't?

Chaz, you are referring to Romans 6. Reprinted below are two verses that I think you are talking about.

22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.</SPAN>
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This chapter seems to state that the sin is the sin before physical death and failure by the person to receive the gift of God that is eternal life.

Therefore any sin that that the person has not been set free from will result in spiritual death. Furthermore, the original sin in the Garden of Eden results in physical death for all.

What I was talking about was the consequences of sin PRIOR TO DEATH. I gave you some examples of Biblical situations in which the sins did not have the same consequences while the sinner was alive.

Chaz, what is your answer to the Biblical facts that Moses killed an innocent man and Moses&#8217; consequences were not the same as those that were involved in giving credit to the Golden calf. I am sure you remember that those involved with the Golden calf were killed but Moses was not. WHY?

Moses&#8217;s sin of killing did not have the equal consequences of the people that gave credit to the Golden Calf for bringing them out of Egypt.

Is all sin equal?
No, in terms of consequences by man and God.

 

[mkgal1]

If you see a Christian brother or sister sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it.~1st John 5:16

This passage has been posted a few times already, but no one else has commented on it.

I'm wondering (and there is disagreement from Bible scholars on this one) is this is referring to blaspheming the Holy Spirit---like Ananias and Sapphira did in Acts 5.

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife&#8217;s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles&#8217; feet. 3But Peter said, &#8220;Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4&#8220;While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.&#8221; 5And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. 6The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.


7Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8And Peter responded to her, &#8220;Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?&#8221; And she said, &#8220;Yes, that was the price.&#8221; 9Then Peter said to her, &#8220;Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.&#8221; 10And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

11And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.
12At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon&#8217;s portico. 13But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. 14And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number, 15to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. 16Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed.

But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit *never* has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.~Mark 3:29

 

[I Art Laughing]

This passage has been posted a few times already, but no one else has commented on it.

I'm wondering (and there is disagreement from Bible scholars on this one) is this is referring to blaspheming the Holy Spirit---like Ananias and Sapphira did in Acts 5.

A sin leading to death? Like unprotected sex with multiple partners or smoking meth? I think this verse is talking about physical death. All sin leads to spiritual death.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
(Rom 8:2-6)

 

[Romanseight2005]

If you didn't do something that God wanted you to do because you "overslept" is that obedience or disobedience? What was the motive? Not loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, that is falling short of the mark (sin).

It might also fall underneath the definition of sloth. Sin causes separation from God.

What if the person was up late praying and honestly overslept because they were tired. They then did not do the good they knew they should have done, but they didn't avoid doing it purposely. Iow, purposing a sin, verses not purposing, yet still sinning, aren't necessarily the same heart motivations at all.


Matthew 26:40-41

40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter. 41 "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak ."
NIV


So then, a willing spirit, is not the same as an unwilling one.

 

[I Art Laughing]

What if the person was up late praying and honestly overslept because they were tired. They then did not do the good they knew they should have done, but they didn't avoid doing it purposely. Iow, purposing a sin, verses not purposing, yet still sinning, aren't necessarily the same heart motivations at all.


Matthew 26:40-41

40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter. 41 "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak ."
NIV


So then, a willing spirit, is not the same as an unwilling one.

If you were physically unable to do something then God wouldn't ask you to do it, He knows our limitations and He gives us all of the grace by His Holy Spirit to do what He asks. Not to do what He asks is unbelief and is sin. If God tells you to walk on water and you refuse, or fail, it is sin.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
(Eph 2:8-10)

Can you imagine being a disciple and falling asleep during the prayer watch at the Garden of Gethsemane? They didn't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit then and Jesus said:

And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
(Mat 26:40-41)

He accommodated the weakness of their flesh, but believers now have been given the Holy Spirit:

So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
(Rom 8:8-10)

 

[chaz345]

Chaz, you are referring to Romans 6. Reprinted below are two verses that I think you are talking about.

22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.</SPAN>
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This chapter seems to state that the sin is the sin before physical death and failure by the person to receive the gift of God that is eternal life.

Therefore any sin that that the person has not been set free from will result in spiritual death. Furthermore, the original sin in the Garden of Eden results in physical death for all.

What I was talking about was the consequences of sin PRIOR TO DEATH. I gave you some examples of Biblical situations in which the sins did not have the same consequences while the sinner was alive.

Chaz, what is your answer to the Biblical facts that Moses killed an innocent man and Moses’ consequences were not the same as those that were involved in giving credit to the Golden calf. I am sure you remember that those involved with the Golden calf were killed but Moses was not. WHY?

Moses’s sin of killing did not have the equal consequences of the people that gave credit to the Golden Calf for bringing them out of Egypt.

If I recall, Moses killing was in the defense of another person. Nowhere, not even in the oft misquoted commandment, does God say that killing another person is always a sin. The difference is that in one case Moses was doing what God would, standing up for one who couldn't stand up for themself, and and in the other the people were turning away from God and his ways.

 

[chaz345]

I'm not really sure how you are defining "erotic fiction".....especially since you are lumping it in with "romantic fiction". I don't believe that our sexuality is meant to be separated from how we love (within the proper context, I mean)-----otherwise, that equals lust and is a counterfeit to how God created us...IMO.

If you simply mean fiction that describes physical details is "erotic"........then, what about Song of Solomon? Do you see "about zero difference" there? Would you consider that....."not all that far from full on erotic fiction"?

I'm not lumping the two together. I'm also done discussing this topic with someone who seems to want to make it look like I'm saying things I'm not.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss what I mean by that but via PM so it doesn't derail further than we already have at times.

 

[mkgal1]

I'm not lumping the two together. I'm also done discussing this topic with someone who seems to want to make it look like I'm saying things I'm not.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss what I mean by that but via PM so it doesn't derail further than we already have at times.

I'm not "wanting to make it look" like anything. You had said earlier in the thread that there's "about zero difference" between what's been called "erotic fiction" and "romantic fiction". That's what I mean by "lumping them together".

I had said earlier in the thread that I consider "romantic fiction" a "story about love" and I meant genuine love. I also said that I consider "erotic fiction".....to be the latest book that was mentioned in that other thread. I haven't read that book---nor do I WANT to---but, based on what I've read about it, I believe it's a distortion of love---a counterfeit of love, and that's the trouble I see with it. From what I'm understanding.....you seem to be making the distinction about physical details that are written about. I was *asking* you to clarify. I also used the qualifier of "IF".....which is an invitation for you to correct me, and explain your thoughts.

I don't consider this a derail....it's the topic of this thread.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I'm not "wanting to make it look" like anything. You had said earlier in the thread that there's "about zero difference" between what's been called "erotic fiction" and "romantic fiction". That's what I mean by "lumping them together".

I had said earlier in the thread that I consider "romantic fiction" a "story about love" and I meant genuine love. I also said that I consider "erotic fiction".....to be the latest book that was mentioned in that other thread. I haven't read that book---nor do I WANT to---but, based on what I've read about it, I believe it's a distortion of love---a counterfeit of love, and that's the trouble I see with it. From what I'm understanding.....you seem to be making the distinction about physical details that are written about. I was *asking* you to clarify. I also used the qualifier of "IF".....which is an invitation for you to correct me, and explain your thoughts.

I don't consider this a derail....it's the topic of this thread.

Right. When the,"Love Comes Softly," series gets lumped in with novels that are literally about sex, then you have two different things that aren't even in the same country, let alone, ballpark.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Originally Posted by sdmsanjose
Chaz, you are referring to Romans 6. Reprinted below are two verses that I think you are talking about.

22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.</SPAN>
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This chapter seems to state that the sin is the sin before physical death and failure by the person to receive the gift of God that is eternal life.

Therefore any sin that that the person has not been set free from will result in spiritual death. Furthermore, the original sin in the Garden of Eden results in physical death for all.

What I was talking about was the consequences of sin PRIOR TO DEATH. I gave you some examples of Biblical situations in which the sins did not have the same consequences while the sinner was alive.

Chaz, what is your answer to the Biblical facts that Moses killed an innocent man and Moses&#8217; consequences were not the same as those that were involved in giving credit to the Golden calf. I am sure you remember that those involved with the Golden calf were killed but Moses was not. WHY?

Moses&#8217;s sin of killing did not have the equal consequences of the people that gave credit to the Golden Calf for bringing them out of Egypt.

Repy by Chaz
If I recall, Moses killing was in the defense of another person. Nowhere, not even in the oft misquoted commandment, does God say that killing another person is always a sin. The difference is that in one case Moses was doing what God would, standing up for one who couldn't stand up for themself, and and in the other the people were turning away from God and his ways.

The title of this thread is &#8220;Is all sin equal&#8221;
My answer was

Is all sin equal?
No, in terms of consequences by man and God.

Chaz if you want to oppose my view that the consequences of sin are not the same then that is your right.

I am going to give one more biblical example then we can agree to disagree. The consequences of the sin of lying and some other sins are NOT going to be the same as the sin of having other gods before the real God.

Case in point
Abraham lied several times and never received the consequences as those Israelites that put other gods before the real God. When the Israelites put other gods before God they were put to death, became slaves, and put into captivity of godless nations for years and years. You do not have to take my word, the book of Jeremiah and other books can give you all the verification you want.

Maybe the fact that the first commandment that says &#8220;Thou shalt have no other gods before me&#8221; is first for a reason.


Is all sin equal?
No, in terms of consequences by man and God.

 

[sur]

May I throw in Islamic point of view.!!!

Qur'an say God will forgive any sin if HE wanted to except "Shirk" (making partners in worshiping HIM) ... So this is considered to be non-forgivable sin. & even in other sins there are sins that have bigger penalty than others. Just like in world law has different degrees of penalties for different crime depending upon how gravely it affected the society.

 

[mkgal1]

Right. When the,"Love Comes Softly," series gets lumped in with novels that are literally about sex, then you have two different things that aren't even in the same country, let alone, ballpark.

I don't really think the division necessarily needs to be about "love" and "sex". Sex *is* a legitimate (and healthy) part of love.....isn't it? (Within the proper context of marriage).

To me....description of full intimacy isn't the problem. It's when sex and love are divided that is the issue, really (specifically sex minus genuine love).

 

[mkgal1]

May I throw in Islamic point of view.!!!

Qur'an say God will forgive any sin if HE wanted to except "Shirk" (making partners in worshiping HIM) ... So this is considered to be non-forgivable sin. & even in other sins there are sins that have bigger penalty than others. Just like in world law has different degrees of penalties for different crime depending upon how gravely it affected the society.

Good point. That's just as "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" is unforgiveable. If we are worshipping something other than God---we are rejecting Him. You know.....that's the same line that's to be considered the boundary line in marriage also. If one is "sharing" (even emotionally) what belongs to their spouse (their love and devotion).....that's unforgiveable---they need to turn away from that in order to be forgiven and for the marriage to truly be restored.

If however, I continue to dishonor my husband's wishes that I hang the towel up nicely over the towel bar (out of negligence and being rushed and it just not being a priority in my mind).....I think that would be more of an annoyance to him---not a matter to divorce over.

 

[chaz345]

I'm not "wanting to make it look" like anything. You had said earlier in the thread that there's "about zero difference" between what's been called "erotic fiction" and "romantic fiction". That's what I mean by "lumping them together".

I had said earlier in the thread that I consider "romantic fiction" a "story about love" and I meant genuine love. I also said that I consider "erotic fiction".....to be the latest book that was mentioned in that other thread. I haven't read that book---nor do I WANT to---but, based on what I've read about it, I believe it's a distortion of love---a counterfeit of love, and that's the trouble I see with it. From what I'm understanding.....you seem to be making the distinction about physical details that are written about. I was *asking* you to clarify. I also used the qualifier of "IF".....which is an invitation for you to correct me, and explain your thoughts.

I don't consider this a derail....it's the topic of this thread.

Allow me to clarify. There is indeed a difference between true romantic fiction, and erotic fiction. However, it is my opinion that a large amount of what is called romantic fiction today is in fact little different than erotic fiction. Not all, the Love series by Oakes would be one of the exceptions, but a large portion.

But as I've said before, in the same what they erotic fiction and inappropriate content can cause problems in creating a fantasy version of what sex looks like, stories like Love Comes Softly and the like can cause problems by creating a fantasy version of what love looks like. And to sort of tie this back to the OP, in both cases it's a sin to expect real life to look like the fantasy version.

 

[mkgal1]

May I throw in Islamic point of view.!!!

Qur'an say God will forgive any sin if HE wanted to except "Shirk" (making partners in worshiping HIM) ... So this is considered to be non-forgivable sin. & even in other sins there are sins that have bigger penalty than others. Just like in world law has different degrees of penalties for different crime depending upon how gravely it affected the society.

The more I think about this....this is really what it amounts to. Not all sin is equal, because unrepentant sin is unforgiveable.