Is it Sin, if you don't know its wrong?

[d0c markus]

For an Ethics class i had to read some Thomas Aquinas and his theology says that if you dont know its a sin, then your innocent..

but then i was reading and found this verse:

LEV 5:17 "If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible. 18 He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven. 19 It is a guilt offering; he has been guilty of wrongdoing against the LORD."

Compared to Aquinas this is a blaring contradiction, Aquinas wrote alot to say one thing and its plain and simple in the bible.

But anyways whats your take on it, are you innocent if your unknowing?

 

[Rechtgläubig]

I'd have to side with God on this one

 

[CeCe]

I have to agree with Rechtgläubig. Always take God's word over any man's.

Think of it like this. In some states you can come to a "rolling stop" at a Stop sign. Where I come from, that's not legal. As a matter of fact it's called a "California stop" by some police officers here. Anyway, if you do not come to a complete stop at the sign, you can be ticketed for it. It's like the saying :"Ignorance of the law is no excuse." It's the wrong thing whether I am aware of it or not. Hope that makes sense.

 

[d0c markus]

makes perfect sense.

 

[II Paradox II]

Compared to Aquinas this is a blaring contradiction, Aquinas wrote alot to say one thing and its plain and simple in the bible.

But anyways whats your take on it, are you innocent if your unknowing?

I would side with God on this one as well =)

That being said, you may want to be easier on Thomas though as I have read portions of his works that would go against what you read. I can't remember the cite, but I have read where he comments on this issue that one *is* responsible for things they do without knowledge. It was in the context of someone being taught by a heretical teacher and what their responsibility is even when being led by a false shepard.

ken

 

[Svt4Him]

I got a speeding ticket even though I didn't know I was going 72 in a 50 zone. (that's KM) Ignorance was no excuse, although I wish it was. The first thing the officer said was, "Do you know how fast you were going?" I was hoping if I said, "No" he'd let me go...no such luck.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

It is sin, of course it is, there is no question there. What most believers struggle with, when they struggle with this topic, is being forgiven for unkown sin. Luckily it is very simple, if we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sin, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. You see we are claensed just by confessing the sin we know. We are cleansed for the sin we confessed and all unrighteousness, it is easy to see that unknown sin would be included in unrighteousness. So praise God! Yes it's sin, and we are fogiven for it without even having to know the we committed it.

 

[d0c markus]

Yea i think he has 3 different parts. The one he claims your not responsible for are the "antecedent" ones. I will look it up in my ethics book and post after i pack most of my things im takin to college... till then

peace.

mark

 

[d0c markus]

Sin According to Thomas Aquinas:​

"If concupiscence were to destroy knowledge altogether, as happens with those whom concupiscence has rendered mad, it would follow that concupiscence would take voluntariness. And yet, properly speaking, it would not make the act involuntary, because in beings bereft of reason there is neither voluntary nor involuntary." - T. A.

'In other words, if you have gone genuinely "mad from desire" and if you are really insane then your act is neither voluntary nor involuntary. If you are really "bereft of reason," then the distinction does not apply to you . Nevertheless, if you are not insane, then knowledge is still present and you still have the power to will the act, or not will the act - for the will can resist passion'

So basically the book leads us into T.A.'s 3 definitions of when sin is your blame. When you are responsible for it.

they are:

Concomitant Ignorance
Consequent Ignorance
Antecedent Ignorance

"Ignorance is "concomitant with the act of will" when you might be ignorant but wouldnt change your behavior even if you knew the facts (thus what happens is something that you would have wanted to happen if you'd known). Aquinas's analysis is that this is neither voluntary nor involuntary (coerced) but just nonvoluntary. Your ignorance accompanies the performance of a moral action, but the ignorance is not the cause of the action."

Basically you would do it anyways if you knew it was wrong.

Consequent Ignorance:

"...suppose i see a speed limit sign ahead, and i turn and look out the window in the other direction so that I won't know what the speed limit is. Can't i tell the police officer that, in all honesty I did not know what the speed limit was? Aquinas says this won't work. The reason is you have chosen not to know. Of course you are still responsible (and the act is voluntary). Ignorance of the law is no excuse as long as you have ignored what you ought to consider, or you purposely avoid knowing so that you have an excuse for your action, or possibly you simply not bother to take the trouble to find out what you ought to consider.

...Because the ignorance was willed the acts that the ignorance causes are also willed and you can be held responsible."


"Ignorance is "Antecedent to the act of will" when you are ignorant, and are not responsible for that ignorance, and would have behaved differently if you knew - this does excuse responsibility and is involuntary."

____________________________________

I use to agree with this until today. According to the bible(see first post) you are responsible for you sin, whether done in ignorance or in full knowledge. The Bible is how we know what is right and wrong, we are called to double check everything we learn, i think thats fairly reasonable.. What do you guys think?

Source: Classical Ethics: East and West by Robert B. Zeuschner, Ph.D. pgs. 119-121

 

[FreeinChrist]

I believe it is important to consider what covenant a person is under in regards to this question.

Under Mosaic Law, unintentional sin committed by God's people could be forgiven by a guilt offering. The once a year atonement sacrifice was also for unintentional sin. However, all the sacrifices done in the Levitical system could not remove sin, and intentional sin - well, I don't see that it was forgiven then.

But consider that Jesus hadn't been born and died for our sins, yet.

If we are born again,in Christ, I believe that unintentional sin is already forgiven. Christ was the atoning sacrifice like the once a year atoning sacrifice. However, Christ's sacrifice was once for all. And it could remove sin, even intentional sins done. That is while the writer of Hebrews keeps mentioning that the sacrifice of Christ was a better sacrifce, based on better promises.
So I don't believe that Thomas Aquinas is contradicting God, necessarily, but is recognizing how great a sacrifice Christ made for us, and that he is aware of the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

 

[d0c markus]

I believe it is important to consider what covenant a person is under in regards to this question.

Under Mosaic Law, unintentional sin committed by God's people could be forgiven by a guilt offering. The once a year atonement sacrifice was also for unintentional sin. However, all the sacrifices done in the Levitical system could not remove sin, and intentional sin - well, I don't see that it was forgiven then.

But consider that Jesus hadn't been born and died for our sins, yet.

If we are born again,in Christ, I believe that unintentional sin is already forgiven. Christ was the atoning sacrifice like the once a year atoning sacrifice. However, Christ's sacrifice was once for all. And it could remove sin, even intentional sins done. That is while the writer of Hebrews keeps mentioning that the sacrifice of Christ was a better sacrifce, based on better promises.
So I don't believe that Thomas Aquinas is contradicting God, necessarily, but is recognizing how great a sacrifice Christ made for us, and that he is aware of the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

No Doubt. I was hoping someone would bring up the Levitical system. I am not disputing Jesus and him forgiving sins past present and future, but does that mean we are able to become completely sinless, not yet, not here. We can still sin.

And we are still called to lead holy lives, to flee from sin, and when we sin we are responsible for that whether intentional or not. Because Jesus came to earth doesnt mean we throw the OT away as useless, the levitical system may be done with, but it still teaches us who God is.

I dont see how the verse in Lev when it says we are responsible for sin whether known or not could expire? Ya know?

 

[FreeinChrist]

No Doubt. I was hoping someone would bring up the Levitical system. I am not disputing Jesus and him forgiving sins past present and future, but does that mean we are able to become completely sinless, not yet, not here. We can still sin.

Yep, we sure can.

And we are still called to lead holy lives, to flee from sin, and when we sin we are responsible for that whether intentional or not. Because Jesus came to earth doesnt mean we throw the OT away as useless, the levitical system may be done with, but it still teaches us who God is.

I agree. I have found that studying the Mosaic Law and it's pictures of what was to be very enlightening.

I dont see how the verse in Lev when it says we are responsible for sin whether known or not could expire? Ya know?

I believe we are responsible for unintentional sin, but not under condemnation for it. We will bear the consequences on earth. Like if I unintentional offend someone on this mb and they get hurt, I've lost a possible friend.
When we stand before the judgement seat of Christ, sins committed unintentionally may cost some rewards. I don't know. I just know that we are not under condemnation.

 

[d0c markus]

me and you are in agreement then 100%

 

[TwinCrier]

When you think about it, when you think you don't know something is wrong, deep inside you really do. God knows our heart. Now, if someone say, spikes your drink for exam-le, and you don't taste the alcohol and drive drunk, you'll stilll be guilty in the law, but I don't think God would view it as sin. I think it's rare for someone to truly not feel that something is wrong. Sometimes I won't do something just because it feels wrong, like I don't play poker or slots and such on the computer even for fun, just because I don't feel right doing it. Now it may not be a sin, and someone else may not have a problem with it, but if I go ahead and do what I feel is wrong, it would be a sin. Even Jesus said of those who crucified Him, they know not what they do.

 

[d0c markus]

I agree with the exception of drive drunk, regardless if someone spikes your drink, your gonna know you messed up.

As for playing poker for fun not being a sin, but you having doubts with it see:

RO 14:19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

RO 14:22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

replace food and eating with poker and we have a close analogy or somethin

 

[1John5:3]

If we sin through ignorance, it is not accounted to us as sin, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17. "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Acts 17:30-31.
Jesus Himself fully endorsed such a concept. "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." John 9:41. "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin." John 15:22.

 

[pentecostal girl]

For an Ethics class i had to read some Thomas Aquinas and his theology says that if you dont know its a sin, then your innocent..

but then i was reading and found this verse:

LEV 5:17 "If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible. 18 He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven. 19 It is a guilt offering; he has been guilty of wrongdoing against the LORD."

Compared to Aquinas this is a blaring contradiction, Aquinas wrote alot to say one thing and its plain and simple in the bible.

But anyways whats your take on it, are you innocent if your unknowing?

I noticed the verses you quoted were from Leviticus. Leviticus is full of ceremonial laws that we are not under because of the blood that Jesus shed for us. I think this is where God's mercy comes in HE knows the intents of our hearts. May God keep blessing with his many blessings

 

[d0c markus]

Let us have a look. If they are not accountible to sin then jesus contradicts the OT.

If we sin through ignorance, it is not accounted to us as sin, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17.

James is talking about the sins of slander and boasting see 4:11-16, check out 1 John 3:4 for what sin is. Since The bible does not contradict itself Lev 5:17 stands.

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Acts 17:30-31.

There was a period of time during adam and noah when the law had not yet been laid down. Read the CONTEXT start at verse 24 through the end of the chapter. Notice how the context talks about the beggining of the world. This period of time is what God winked at. Lev 5:17 still stands.

Jesus Himself fully endorsed such a concept. "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." John 9:41.

One of the points of the gospel message was to recognize that we are sinners, to open our eyes that all have fallen. Look back a couple verses the pharisees say "what are we blind too?" You can no longer use the excuse you didnt know, Jesus said if you were blind you would have no sin, i agree with Jesus, adam didnt know sin until he ate the fruit, his eyes were what?

They were opened (gen 3:7)

Lev 5:17 stands.

The whole chapter deals with blindness both literally and spiritually, spiritual blindness appears harder to fix, the pharisees we to caught up in themselves even though the truth was right in front of them.

"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin." John 15:22.

Ok, if you read the context of the chapter in V.21 it says "they do not know the one who sent me" Everything you ever need to know about jesus and his coming is in the OT, they had the means to the knowledge, but ignored it, they knew not the father. But now jesus is their and confronts thier sin, there is no cloak to hide under, if jesus had never came to earth then how could they be guilty of hating him, for he never came?

Lev 5:17 still stands.

That took alot of reading, all my commentaies are packed away.. Nonetheless it is fun stuff.

Take Care
Mark

 

[d0c markus]

I noticed the verses you quoted were from Leviticus. Leviticus is full of ceremonial laws that we are not under because of the blood that Jesus shed for us. I think this is where God's mercy comes in HE knows the intents of our hearts. May God keep blessing with his many blessings

No we are not under those cerimonial requirements, but the law of the OT is now a guideline for us to follow. Jesus fulfilled the sacrifice required to atone for these tresspasses, but are they now void? No.

1JN 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness

The 10 commandments were part of the law. Remember Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it in his sacrifice. (the atonement required for breakin it)

Many Blessings
Mark

 

[1John5:3]

We must be thankful that we serve a compassionate God who will not hold us responsible for our genuine ignorance. "Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity." Hebrews 5:2. However, if that ignorance has been the result of deliberate negligence of the principles of God, then we cannot expect the mercy of God. "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." Hebrews 2:3.

Which is correct?
1) We sin because we are sinners
2) We are sinners because we sin