Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ The Sorcerer's Sin

[Hill Top]

I still don't agree that all sin is intentional. There are New Testament examples of sins committed through ignorance.
See Paul's sins committed in ignorance and unbelief which he listed in 1st Timothy 1:13-16, for example. He didn't know he was sinning when he did those deeds and he didn't intend to sin when he did them. Yet, those acts counted towards Paul's being the chief of sinners.

Paul's pre-conversion actions were done under the auspices of the Law.
By the Law, there was no condemnation.
But had they been done in Christ, there would be.
Paul's comment was with NT eyes about OT events.

Ignoring the potential dispensational discussions that we could launch into from here...
Paul's New Testament perspective still included the idea of sins of ignorance. In fact, Paul cites his ignorance as a reason for finding forgiveness.

They were only sins from a NT perspective.
His OT actions were according to the Law of God.
They were not sins when he did them.

All NT sin must include temptation, lust, enticement, and conception.
In James' 1:14-15 formula, there is no room for ignorance.

What do you mean that "they were not sins when he did... his OT actions... according to the [OT] Law"?

Paul's persecution of the then new church was all according to the Jewish Law.
How can obedience to God be called a sin ?

Why did he need mercy for those actions if they were not sinful?

The mercy of God showed Paul his persecutions were not His will.

Didn't he count those sins as being so sinful that they qualified him as the "Chief of Sinners"?

He didn't count them as sinful while he was doing them, as the Law called for them to be done.
In hind-sight, though, he saw that it was not God's will at all.

Why does the James 1:14-15 formula preclude sinning via ignorance or deception?

To show us that lust and intent, etc., are necessary to commit sin.