Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Are All Sins Equal in God's Eyes? Billy Graham Sounds Off

[Justaned]

Ed Why not try for once and address things that people say instead of belittling people. I cant discus unless you address something specific about what am I wrong about. What scripture did give that was wrong? I give scripture what did you give? I simply quoted Paul, Its ok if you disagree just give a point or some kind of tangible counter point you seem to only give opinions with no scripture at least give scripture and maybe we can discuss.. All you do little is belittle with no reason as to why. If you disagree give reason instead of attacking someone's intelligence, thank you.

I did give scripture James. May I suggest that if you quote scripture you give the full citation so readers don't have to chase all through scripture find the particular passage you are talking about.

But I quite agree with Titus123. Sin is more than a breaking a law, it is about the attitude and intent of the heart. Dr Graham hit the nail on the head.
I was not belittleing you I was merely addressing your refusal to see anything other a breaking of a specifice law as being sin. James says sin is conconceived in the heart and the heart of man knows nothing of the letter of the law.
Sorry if you felt I belittled you. I was just trying to address you at the understanding level your tyoical responses suggest you are at.

[Rocky]

Neither you nor I can tell what John was thinking of, since we are not able to go back and read what was in his mind.
I do know the word the Holy Spirit had him use is broader than "breaking the moral law".

But that is really beside the point - the point Dake brings out (as do many other passages in Scripture) is that sin is something more than merely breaking laws. It goes to what a person is, and not just to what a person does. Much as what Jesus taught in Mark 7 about the human heart being the source of the defiling thoughts and actions in our lives.
As for Paul's statement in Romans 7, you need to keep reading what he wrote. His point is not merely that sin is breaking the law . . . in fact, he goes on to make the same point Dake made. The law made him aware of the evil desires within him which were really behind the sinful actions he committed. As the rest of the chapter shows, Paul became painfully aware that sin was almost a living thing, a power which enslaved him.

Ok But remember Paul said I had not known sin but by the law that cannot be denied concerning this. I am not saying you are wrong or anything, But I do believe Billy Graham is wrong in his definitions of sin according to paul's writings. According to Paul the sinner is guilty before God because they broke God's law Christ came and paid the penalty for the law that was broke.
Paul wrote Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. And I had not known sin but by the law. I just think that is easier to understand instead of what Billy Graham or Ed is saying or anybody else that contradicts Paul.. Paul taught The law gives knowledge of sin, shows us what sin is, was given to show our guilt until Christ should come. Remember the Law was a schoolmaster to lead us the Christ.. Sinners are guilty because they broke the law, all of us have, we all have lied maybe even stolen something, took God's name in vain, Jesus said if you look with lust you have committed adultery and if you hate your brother you have committed murder. That's why we need Jesus, the law shows us our guilt and shows us our need for a savior. That is what Paul is saying.

[titus213]

Yes Paul did emphasize the role of the law as that which brings awareness of sin and a sense of condemnation.
But the Bible doesn't teach a definition of sin as lawbreaking alone . . . and i think that's what Billy Graham was trying to bring out, as Paul does often enough too.
It's a both / and kind of thing, I think. Because sin is both what's on the inside and what's on the outside.
And the law, for Paul, was not merely the Mosaic law but the Torah, the entire Instruction God had given from Genesis to Deuteronomy. It was God's will as he had revealed it to his people . . . I think he would have totally agreed with Billy Graham that "any thought or action that falls short of God's will" would be considered sin. Romans 3.23 expresses that pretty well.

[Rocky]

Ed Why not try for once and address things that people say instead of belittling people. I cant discus unless you address something specific about what am I wrong about. What scripture did give that was wrong? I give scripture what did you give? I simply quoted Paul, Its ok if you disagree just give a point or some kind of tangible counter point you seem to only give opinions with no scripture at least give scripture and maybe we can discuss.. All you do little is belittle with no reason as to why. If you disagree give reason instead of attacking someone's intelligence, thank you.

I did give scripture James. May I suggest that if you quote scripture you give the full citation so readers don't have to chase all through scripture find the particular passage you are talking about.

But I quite agree with Titus123. Sin is more than a breaking a law, it is about the attitude and intent of the heart. Dr Graham hit the nail on the head.
I was not belittleing you I was merely addressing your refusal to see anything other a breaking of a specifice law as being sin. James says sin is conconceived in the heart and the heart of man knows nothing of the letter of the law.
Sorry if you felt I belittled you. I was just trying to address you at the understanding level your tyoical responses suggest you are at.

Hmm cant even admit to belittling people lol anyway, The verse you used in James in not giving a definition of sin but its consequence. Here is Paul's explanation on this subject.
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law

So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.

And you say sin is not the breaking of some law, well Paul disagrees with you according to his own writings. I am going with Paul on this instead of you.. Now what Law is Paul talking about?
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
Only one law was written on Stone. The moral law, the Decalogue.. Disagree that's fine, but that is what the bible says. I know catch phrases from popular preachers sounds good but it must line up with the bible..

[Rocky]

Yes Paul did emphasize the role of the law as that which brings awareness of sin and a sense of condemnation.
But the Bible doesn't teach a definition of sin as lawbreaking alone . . . and i think that's what Billy Graham was trying to bring out, as Paul does often enough too.
It's a both / and kind of thing, I think. Because sin is both what's on the inside and what's on the outside.
And the law, for Paul, was not merely the Mosaic law but the Torah, the entire Instruction God had given from Genesis to Deuteronomy. It was God's will as he had revealed it to his people . . . I think he would have totally agreed with Billy Graham that "any thought or action that falls short of God's will" would be considered sin. Romans 3.23 expresses that pretty well.

I get what you are saying brother. Billy Grahams statement just seems a little off to me. To me Sinners are guilty because of breaking Gods law, not just "A sin is any thought or action that falls short of God’s will. God is perfect, and anything we do that falls short of His perfection is sin. Paul to me gives a more concise and clearer answer, Graham's answer seem cliché and more like mans definition, but thats just me ...

[Justaned]

Ed Why not try for once and address things that people say instead of belittling people. I cant discus unless you address something specific about what am I wrong about. What scripture did give that was wrong? I give scripture what did you give? I simply quoted Paul, Its ok if you disagree just give a point or some kind of tangible counter point you seem to only give opinions with no scripture at least give scripture and maybe we can discuss.. All you do little is belittle with no reason as to why. If you disagree give reason instead of attacking someone's intelligence, thank you.

I did give scripture James. May I suggest that if you quote scripture you give the full citation so readers don't have to chase all through scripture find the particular passage you are talking about.

But I quite agree with Titus123. Sin is more than a breaking a law, it is about the attitude and intent of the heart. Dr Graham hit the nail on the head.
I was not belittleing you I was merely addressing your refusal to see anything other a breaking of a specifice law as being sin. James says sin is conconceived in the heart and the heart of man knows nothing of the letter of the law.
Sorry if you felt I belittled you. I was just trying to address you at the understanding level your tyoical responses suggest you are at.

Hmm cant even admit to belittling people lol anyway, The verse you used in James in not giving a definition of sin but its consequence. Here is Paul's explanation on this subject.
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law
So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
And you say sin is not the breaking of some law, well Paul disagrees with you according to his own writings. I am going with Paul on this instead of you.. Now what Law is Paul talking about?
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
Only one law was written on Stone. The moral law, the Decalogue.. Disagree that's fine, but that is what the bible says. I know catch phrases from popular preachers sounds good but it must line up with the bible..

Rocky
Have it your way I will stick with Dr Graham's definition. Works for me. And yes of course the verses I quoted from James does give the definition of sin.
If you remember the Pharisees kept the law but they had larceny in their hearts and Jesus condemned them for it. If you are not in God's will you have separated yourself from Him and that is exactly what sin does.
Loving one's neighbor goes way beyond the law. Loving ones enemy goes way beyond the law, loving God in body and spirit goes beyond the law. And of course sins of omission which you swear don't exist aren't mentioned in the law. The law defines social behavior but it speaks nothing of the intent of the heart. Some people actually do good for the wrong intent and that is as much sin as not doing anything. Others do as the please and pretend that since their particular lifestyle isn't mentioned in scripture then it isn't sin. Just another way of justifying sinful behavior.

[titus213]

I'm not sure why yet another discussion has to potentially blow up into a major conflict . . . my hunch is that we often agree on more than we realize, and talk past each other on the bits where we honestly differ.

I'm sure we all recognize that sin involves the outward transgression of the law, as well as something more going on deep inside. Depending on the audience and the point being made, Paul and others could stress the one aspect or the other.

It seems a little goofy to me for any of us, me included, to run the risk of sinning as we argue over the meaning of sin!

At any rate, I didn't / don't mean to sparring over this; it's one of the weaknesses of written text that it cannot convey attitudes; the words tend to sound harsher when read than they are meant to be, I suspect. Unless one uses those little smiley-face thingamabobs, which I have never quite gotten the hang of.

[Justaned]

I'm not sure why yet another discussion has to potentially blow up into a major conflict . . . my hunch is that we often agree on more than we realize, and talk past each other on the bits where we honestly differ.

I'm sure we all recognize that sin involves the outward transgression of the law, as well as something more going on deep inside. Depending on the audience and the point being made, Paul and others could stress the one aspect or the other.

It seems a little goofy to me for any of us, me included, to run the risk of sinning as we argue over the meaning of sin!

At any rate, I didn't / don't mean to sparring over this; it's one of the weaknesses of written text that it cannot convey attitudes; the words tend to sound harsher when read than they are meant to be, I suspect. Unless one uses those little smiley-face thingamabobs, which I have never quite gotten the hang of.

Nicely stated and my sentiments exactly. You spoke in excellence and clarity.
Well done!

[Rocky]

Ed Why not try for once and address things that people say instead of belittling people. I cant discus unless you address something specific about what am I wrong about. What scripture did give that was wrong? I give scripture what did you give? I simply quoted Paul, Its ok if you disagree just give a point or some kind of tangible counter point you seem to only give opinions with no scripture at least give scripture and maybe we can discuss.. All you do little is belittle with no reason as to why. If you disagree give reason instead of attacking someone's intelligence, thank you.

I did give scripture James. May I suggest that if you quote scripture you give the full citation so readers don't have to chase all through scripture find the particular passage you are talking about.

But I quite agree with Titus123. Sin is more than a breaking a law, it is about the attitude and intent of the heart. Dr Graham hit the nail on the head.
I was not belittleing you I was merely addressing your refusal to see anything other a breaking of a specifice law as being sin. James says sin is conconceived in the heart and the heart of man knows nothing of the letter of the law.
Sorry if you felt I belittled you. I was just trying to address you at the understanding level your tyoical responses suggest you are at.

Hmm cant even admit to belittling people lol anyway, The verse you used in James in not giving a definition of sin but its consequence. Here is Paul's explanation on this subject.
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law
So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
And you say sin is not the breaking of some law, well Paul disagrees with you according to his own writings. I am going with Paul on this instead of you.. Now what Law is Paul talking about?
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
Only one law was written on Stone. The moral law, the Decalogue.. Disagree that's fine, but that is what the bible says. I know catch phrases from popular preachers sounds good but it must line up with the bible..

Rocky
Have it your way I will stick with Dr Graham's definition. Works for me. And yes of course the verses I quoted from James does give the definition of sin.
If you remember the Pharisees kept the law but they had larceny in their hearts and Jesus condemned them for it. If you are not in God's will you have separated yourself from Him and that is exactly what sin does.
Loving one's neighbor goes way beyond the law. Loving ones enemy goes way beyond the law, loving God in body and spirit goes beyond the law. And of course sins of omission which you swear don't exist aren't mentioned in the law. The law defines social behavior but it speaks nothing of the intent of the heart. Some people actually do good for the wrong intent and that is as much sin as not doing anything. Others do as the please and pretend that since their particular lifestyle isn't mentioned in scripture then it isn't sin. Just another way of justifying sinful behavior.

Ed you went on a rabbit trail, I never said anything about justifying sin. And this is not my way, I gave you the bible and you just turn your noose up at it. Ed you totally missed it bro. I never claimed the law justifies or said and thing about justifying sin or sin of omission. I am giving you the reason for the law and how it pertains to sin, according to Paul. So you are disagreeing with the apostle Paul, Why? because it does not fit in with your sin of omission or what ever? I floors me that when you are shown the bible you are like, "I still want my own theology". I guess we will just agree to this agree because I don't know where else to go when one rejects scripture. I am sorry I gave plain and concise Scripture and you reject it, nothing else more to discuss unless you want to discuss maybe I am misunderstanding standing Paul though I don't see how else to interpret those verses. Or you could give me some bible verses on sin of omission so I could study it out that would be helpful as well, But you never do just a, I am right you are wrong nah nah nah boo boo kind of thing.

[Rocky]

I'm not sure why yet another discussion has to potentially blow up into a major conflict . . . my hunch is that we often agree on more than we realize, and talk past each other on the bits where we honestly differ.

I'm sure we all recognize that sin involves the outward transgression of the law, as well as something more going on deep inside. Depending on the audience and the point being made, Paul and others could stress the one aspect or the other.

It seems a little goofy to me for any of us, me included, to run the risk of sinning as we argue over the meaning of sin!

At any rate, I didn't / don't mean to sparring over this; it's one of the weaknesses of written text that it cannot convey attitudes; the words tend to sound harsher when read than they are meant to be, I suspect. Unless one uses those little smiley-face thingamabobs, which I have never quite gotten the hang of.

I agree, but you have been gracious in this discussion nothing wrong with a discussion, which I have noticed you always are. Now Ed And I and a few others we are bulldogs lol..