Thread: "The Greater Sin": Are There Degrees of Sin?

Are there degrees of sin? What about the Roman Catholic distinction between “mortal” and “venial” sins? I attempt to explore these questions in the following post:

"The Greater Sin": Are There Degrees of Sin?

Your servant,

Good post. I especially liked your discussion on the unpardonable sin; good analysis of the historical understanding. The WSC succinctly states the seriousness of sin and the fact that some sins are more serious than others. Q/A 83 "Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous? Some sins in themselves, and by reasons of several aggravations, are more heinous n the sight of God than others." Q/A 84 "What doth every sin deserve? Every sin deserveth God's wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come."

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Are there degrees of sin? What about the Roman Catholic distinction between “mortal” and “venial” sins? I attempt to explore these questions in the following post:

"The Greater Sin": Are There Degrees of Sin?

Your servant,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important topic!

Cheers,

I like your last paragraph best, the application. I have known several who have "given up" on praying because they thought they were too bad to be saved.




Now,

If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I like your last paragraph best, the application. I have known several who have "given up" on praying because they thought they were too bad to save.

Now,

If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.

Hey, Perg. Thanks for the remarks. I think there are different degrees of punishment and reward in glory. I recently suggested so on one of my posts ("Of the Last Judgment") and Dr. Craig Blomberg who's written an article against the idea of varying degrees of reward for the Journal of the Evangelical Society commented on my posted and challenged me (see the comments section where we interact). I think his article does appropriately question some texts commonly used to justify varying degrees in reward. I also think he's motivated by a proper distaste for the kind of easy-believism that teaches one may make a decision for Christ, be assured of heaven, yet miss out on a few rewards. Nevertheless, I still think there are texts upon which one may build a good case for varying degrees of reward. I reference a sermon and some miscellaneous notes by Jonathan Edwards where he makes such a case.

I believe in choosing that which causes the least amount of sin in any situation

Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.

This is what I believe Rahab did for the spies.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.

I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.

Originally Posted by WaywardNowHome

I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.

Perhaps this view is borne from a humanistic understanding, in that there would be those in heaven enviously thinking, "Wow, look at that guy over there with his crowns!"

I think those in heaven will be perfectly content with their rewards whatever they may be, and there will be no sinful thoughts, for those in heaven will not want to sin.

AMR

Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.

Are we as Christians ever really put into a situation where we have to choose to sin?

Originally Posted by TimV

Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.

Are we as Christians ever really put into a situation where we have to choose to sin?

I was going to comment the same thing. I don't think there's any reason to believe that, in fact, we are ever put into such situations. If we were, then since God ordains all things, it would be God that put us into a situation in which we had no choice but to sin. That would be contrary to God's character.

Originally Posted by WaywardNowHome

Originally Posted by Pergamum

If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.

I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.

Joel,

I agree with your desire to protect the gospel of God's free grace from a system that introduces the idea of intrinsic human merit. Nevertheless, I'm not sure the idea of varying rewards in heaven is inconsistent with grace any more than the reality of varying degrees of gift and grace and prosperity in this life undermines grace.

Perhaps these citations from Jonathan Edwards may prove helpful. They confirm what Patrick underscored above.

“Every vessel that is cast into this ocean of happiness is full, though there are some vessels far larger than others; and there shall be no such thing as envy in heaven, but perfect love shall reign through the whole society. Those who are not so high in glory as others, will not envy those that are higher but they will have so great and strong and pure love to them, that they will rejoice in their superior happiness; their love to them will be such that they will rejoice that they are happier than themselves; so that instead of having a damp to their own happiness, it will add to it.” “Sermon VIII,” in Works, 2:902.

“Now the holier a man is, the more he loves the same degree of the image; so that the holiest in heaven will love that image of God they see in the least holy more than those do that are less holy; and that which makes it beyond any doubt that this superior happiness will be no damp to them, is this, that their superior happiness consists in their great humility, and in their greater love to them, and to God, and to Christ, whom the saints look upon as themselves. These things may be said of this, beside what may be said about every one being completely satisfied and full of happiness having as much as he is capable of enjoying or desiring; and also what may be said about their entire resignation; for God’s will is become so much their own that the fulfilling of his will, let it be what it may, fills them with inconceivable satisfaction (emphasis his). The Works of Jonathan Edwards (1834; reprint, The Banner of Truth, 1974), 2:618.

For a fuller defense of the idea of varying rewards in heaven, see Cornelius Venema, The Promise of the Future, 405-418, and Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 262-64.

Hope this helps.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 07:59:21 EST-----

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by TimV

Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.

Are we as Christians ever really put into a situation where we have to choose to sin?

I was going to comment the same thing. I don't think there's any reason to believe that, in fact, we are ever put into such situations. If we were, then since God ordains all things, it would be God that put us into a situation in which we had no choice but to sin. That would be contrary to God's character.

Just to clarify, the statement in question is not affirmed in my post. I'm not sure why Charles made that assertion. It would seem to contradict Paul's affirmation,

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Perhaps Charlie could clarify what he meant.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by TimV

Are we as Christians ever really put into a situation where we have to choose to sin?

I was going to comment the same thing. I don't think there's any reason to believe that, in fact, we are ever put into such situations. If we were, then since God ordains all things, it would be God that put us into a situation in which we had no choice but to sin. That would be contrary to God's character.

Just to clarify, the statement in question is not affirmed in my post. I'm not sure why Charles made that assertion. It would seem to contradict Paul's affirmation,

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Perhaps Charlie could clarify what he meant.

What about this situation: A polygamous man is saved by the preaching of the Gospel. Does he sin by remaining polygamous, or does he sin by divorcing all but one wife? (I usually don't like 'what if' questions but this idea is new to me.)

What about this situation: A polygamous man is saved by the preaching of the Gospel. Does he sin by remaining polygamous, or does he sin by divorcing all but one wife? (I usually don't like 'what if' questions but this idea is new to me.)

Polygamy isn't a sin.

Larger Catechism 139:
What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commadnment?
The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment ... are ... having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;b ...."
b. Mal. 2:14
Matt. 19:5

Originally Posted by TimV

What about this situation: A polygamous man is saved by the preaching of the Gospel. Does he sin by remaining polygamous, or does he sin by divorcing all but one wife? (I usually don't like 'what if' questions but this idea is new to me.)

Polygamy isn't a sin.

We've had this conversation here dozens of times, and I would be interested in hearing a leading Reformed theologian today agree with what the Lutherans did in PNG when I was there, and force new converts to divorce all their wives except the oldest. Especially on the two grounds that the WCF gives for permissible divorce.

Go find one then Tim.

Originally Posted by TimV

What about this situation: A polygamous man is saved by the preaching of the Gospel. Does he sin by remaining polygamous, or does he sin by divorcing all but one wife? (I usually don't like 'what if' questions but this idea is new to me.)

Polygamy isn't a sin.

Sorry, bzzt. Wrong. The Bible is clear on this, as are the confessional standards.

Go find one then Tim.

I started with Augustine, Aquinas and Luther, and they all agree polygamy is not always sinful. I'll move up to the Reformed camp later.

Reisinger

A third change to the adultery commandment concerns polygamy. Under the Law of God given to Moses, polygamy was not considered adultery. In fact, the Law of Moses actually mandated that a man had to sleep with both wives if he took a second wife (Exodus 21:10, 11). I think any honest person will admit that a change from a law allowing, even if we make it a reluctant tolerance, polygamy to a law insisting on monogamy alone (Ephesians 5:22, 23) is more than just a surface change in the definition of adultery and marriage. John Murray clearly saw this problem, and because he was an extremely honest writer, frankly admitted what was at stake. He wrote his treatise on ethics attempting to prove that polygamy was just as sinful for David as it would be for us today. If that cannot be proven, and it surely cannot, then there are two canons of conduct, one for Israel and one for the Church, and Covenant Theology loses its foundation.

Originally Posted by TimV

Sometimes, because of our culture etc, we must choose one sin over another. We sometimes must choose the sin which is the least causative of more sin.

Are we as Christians ever really put into a situation where we have to choose to sin?

Romans 6:
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Are we not accountable? We are slaves to whomever we obey, are we not?

Moderator ruling.
Tim,
You said you wanted to hear from a leading Reformed theologian today. Now you are polling dead theologians. If you want to talk to a leading Reformed theologian, go talk to one! Call one up. As far as discussing it here, you yourself have said the board has been over this ground before. The moderators will confer on this, but for now, my ruling is that you will not pursue this further on this thread, or open a new one about it in particular.

Originally Posted by TimV

Go find one then Tim.

I started with Augustine, Aquinas and Luther, and they all agree polygamy is not always sinful. I'll move up to the Reformed camp later.

Reisinger

A third change to the adultery commandment concerns polygamy. Under the Law of God given to Moses, polygamy was not considered adultery. In fact, the Law of Moses actually mandated that a man had to sleep with both wives if he took a second wife (Exodus 21:10, 11). I think any honest person will admit that a change from a law allowing, even if we make it a reluctant tolerance, polygamy to a law insisting on monogamy alone (Ephesians 5:22, 23) is more than just a surface change in the definition of adultery and marriage. John Murray clearly saw this problem, and because he was an extremely honest writer, frankly admitted what was at stake. He wrote his treatise on ethics attempting to prove that polygamy was just as sinful for David as it would be for us today. If that cannot be proven, and it surely cannot, then there are two canons of conduct, one for Israel and one for the Church, and Covenant Theology loses its foundation.

OK, forget about polygamy.

Obviously, God is not going to lead someone to choose between sins. But, from a pastoral standpoint, many do not follow God at all times. Especially in the case of a brand new convert who has been busy entangling himself in sin for years there might be situations where he might have to choose between the 'lesser of two evils'. No?

As for degrees of sin and greater sins, Sin is Sin! As Christians we are to to mortify all sin in "our own" life, including gossip, slander and judging the reprobate. The sure sign of a Christian not mortifying the deeper sin in his "own life" is that he is preoccupied with the sin of "others." And the evangelical Church has preoccupied itself with the sexual sins of the lost, while worshipping the sin of the exaltation of their own abilty to refrain from such.

As for rewards in Heaven. When one is saved they receive the benefits of Christ's passive and "active" obedience. The demand from Heaven for justification is that one must come with a bank account "full" of good works. Man was created to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Man must stand before God innocent of transgressions, but also must have a bank account of good works that represent his responsibility to glorify God.

Christ's passive obedience by His death on the cross accounts for our sins. The benefits of His active obedience as our surety fulfilled man's responsibility to glorify God. Since His work is perfect and infinate in value, we come before God with a full bank account of good works through substitution.

And through this subsitution we receive with Abraham the inheritance and rewards that Christ earns for us.

Yes, the saints receive crowns and rewards that are underserved. and they throw the crowns to the feet of the Lamb in Revelation 4:10

"The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power:"

Those who work for rewards, work for themselves, not for Christ.

And what better reward is there, but to be able to worship the Lord in His presence and to know Him in all of His fulness?

Yes, there are degrees of sin. While all sin rightly deserves God's punishment, some are worse in nature, degree and effect than others.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Question 150: Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?

Answer: All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Question 151: What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?

Answer: Sins receive their aggravations, From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many. From the nature and quality of the offense: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance. From circumstances of time and place: if on the Lord's day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

Question 152: What does every sin deserve at the hands of God?

Answer: Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserves his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.

I would just like to comment here as the "new guy."

I'm thankful that we have godly men who've come before us and set out a "standard" to refer back to such as the WCF.

I come from several churches where it was a free for all and every opinion was equally valid, and there were no documents to refer to...it was just a spiritual volleyball game...

I thank God for things like the WCF that was set down so specifically and comprehensively.

Ok...back to the discussion....

Originally Posted by WaywardNowHome

Originally Posted by Pergamum

If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.

I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.

Everyone is there only by the grace of God; nevertheless, I think Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 3 that our reward depend upon what we build upon that foundation.

What about this situation: A polygamous man is saved by the preaching of the Gospel. Does he sin by remaining polygamous, or does he sin by divorcing all but one wife? (I usually don't like 'what if' questions but this idea is new to me.)

Yes, if he remains polygamous, he sins; no, if he divorces all but one wife, he is not sinning(assuming polygamy falls under the category of sexual immorality, which I think it does). This is part of the reason the exception clause is in there.

Originally Posted by KMK

Obviously, God is not going to lead someone to choose between sins. But, from a pastoral standpoint, many do not follow God at all times. Especially in the case of a brand new convert who has been busy entangling himself in sin for years there might be situations where he might have to choose between the 'lesser of two evils'. No?

I'm not sure I understand. Could you explain what you're thinking of?

A man gives his word to his employer that he will work on Sunday. On Wed he gets saved. Should he break his promise or honor the Sabbath?

Originally Posted by KMK

A man gives his word to his employer that he will work on Sunday. On Wed he gets saved. Should he break his promise or honor the Sabbath?

Is it wrong to break a promise to sin, especially if it's between two men? I don't know that it is. Unless you have a Scripture reference you're thinking of?

If some sins are more serious than others, then does this mean that God considers some people to be more wicked than others? Would God consider my unbelieving next door neighbor to be not as wicked as Adolf Hitler?

Originally Posted by Joshua

By the way, it should be noted that extreme scenarios make for bad policy.

Exactly. I am not arguing against the policy itself. As I said, I agree that God would never lead a man to choose between two sins. However, we often lead ourselves into a myriad of sins. As a pastor, I deal often with people who are being converted and they are so entangled in sin that these extreme scenarios often occur.

I think the point you are making is that a man who broke his promise in favor of keeping the Sabbath is not choosing between two degrees of sins, but is not sinning at all because he made the right choice. I'm not sure I totally agree, but I will drop the issue as I don't want to hijack the thread or promote bad policy.

This thread is closed for the time being.

The thread is open; please stay on topic.
Moderators ruling.
On sinfulness of polygamy. This issue has been discussed before, and it is the moderators consensus that it is not to be questioned and is out of bounds for challenging on PB. WCF 24.1. "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time." If you have an itch to discuss this do so somewhere else. Also, if any of you have real concerns about the burden of the confessional view, take it up with you denominations and seek a change. Untill then, please don't campaign here for it.

If you have an itch to discuss this do so somewhere else. Also, if any of you have real concerns about the burden of the confessional view,

Q: Does "being confessional" mean that we hold to a confession (like the WCF) where a church that doesn't use one of the confessions would be "non-confessional"?

I'm just asking; this is all new to me.

If all sins were equally heinous would we be going around in a permanent state of shock?

We should probably already be in a state of shock even for our "small" sins if we truly sensed their enormity.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

If all sins were equally heinous would we be going around in a permanent state of shock?

Great point.
The all "sin is sin" thing came into popularity fairly recently in modern American evangelism. This is was in part due the fact that many churches had shunned church discipline and where therefore resigned to tolerate even the most heinous of sins and brush them aside saying "all in sin is sin". "Besides you may be homosexual but I drive over the speed limit in God's eyes it is the same thing" That was an actual quote from a pastor's Bible lesson and it was directed to an open and unrepentant homosexual.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

If all sins were equally heinous would we be going around in a permanent state of shock?

Great point.
The all "sin is sin" thing came into popularity fairly recently in modern American evangelism. This is was in part due the fact that many churches had shunned church discipline and where therefore resigned to tolerate even the most heinous of sins and brush them aside saying "all in sin is sin". "Besides you may be homosexual but I drive over the speed limit in God's eyes it is the same thing" That was an actual quote from an ex-pastor of mine (in the Wesleyan Holiness churches) to an open and unrepentant homosexual.

So then, we give a pass to unrepentant speeders and church gossipers? And who measures what is acceptable for church discipline. Yes there are some sins that are more damaging than others. Who decides on the tier system?

Originally Posted by Rogerant

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

If all sins were equally heinous would we be going around in a permanent state of shock?

Great point.
The all "sin is sin" thing came into popularity fairly recently in modern American evangelism. This is was in part due the fact that many churches had shunned church discipline and where therefore resigned to tolerate even the most heinous of sins and brush them aside saying "all in sin is sin". "Besides you may be homosexual but I drive over the speed limit in God's eyes it is the same thing" That was an actual quote from an ex-pastor of mine (in the Wesleyan Holiness churches) to an open and unrepentant homosexual.

So then, we give a pass to unrepentant speeders and church gossipers? And who measures what is acceptable for church discipline. Yes there are some sins that are more damaging than others. Who decides on the tier system?

I'm sorry I don't remember saying that we give a pass to any type of sin? Where did I say that?

The point of what I was saying is that in modern American churches the "all sin is sin" routine is used to soften the guilt of sins rather than convict the sinner.

As far as the "tier system" as you put it. Church discipline is administered by the elders of the Church and it is their responsibility to judge wisely and righteously according the Scriptures. Also, if you want to see that certain sins are greater, read the Scriptures where it is made very clear that certain sins are more grievous. In fact one sin in particular comes to mind...

Originally Posted by WaywardNowHome

Originally Posted by Pergamum

If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.

I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.

Why would you say you could "never" agree; if you cannot know all that is to be known and scripture does not directly contradict or speak against the topic wouldn’t you be saying you're unwilling to agree with scripture?
1 Cor 15:41/42, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead”

Also, if our works cannot save us, why then would 2 Cor 5:10 state

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

if were saved by Christ’s Righteousness and our sin is as far as the East is from the West, why would we ALL receive what is due for what we’ve done? I believe these leave at least large enough question that we cannot say ‘not possible’ for varying degrees of reward in heaven.

Originally Posted by John Weathersby

Originally Posted by WaywardNowHome

Originally Posted by Pergamum

If there are degrees of sin, are there are different degrees of punishment in hell and different degrees of glory in heaven? I think so, but have several who vigorously debate me on this.

I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.

Why would you say you could "never" agree; if you cannot know all that is to be known and scripture does not directly contradict or speak against the topic wouldn’t you be saying you're unwilling to agree with scripture?
1 Cor 15:41/42, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead”

Also, if our works cannot save us, why then would 2 Cor 5:10 state

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

if were saved by Christ’s Righteousness and our sin is as far as the East is from the West, why would we ALL receive what is due for what we’ve done? I believe these leave at least large enough question that we cannot say ‘not possible’ for varying degrees of reward in heaven.

I hope you didn't mean what you just said.

We are saved by Christ's righteousness; that's the only way our works would mean anything. Our works can't save us, because we have to be saved before we can do any good works!

Originally Posted by Skyler

Originally Posted by John Weathersby

Originally Posted by WaywardNowHome

I could never agree with the idea that there are varying degrees of rewards in heaven. If everyone who enters into the presence of our Lord is only there because of Christ's blood, how can any have claim to certain rewards over another? The whole idea of rewards in heaven (other than eternal life) seems contrary to the Gospel to me.

Why would you say you could "never" agree; if you cannot know all that is to be known and scripture does not directly contradict or speak against the topic wouldn’t you be saying you're unwilling to agree with scripture?
1 Cor 15:41/42, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead”

Also, if our works cannot save us, why then would 2 Cor 5:10 state

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

if were saved by Christ’s Righteousness and our sin is as far as the East is from the West, why would we ALL receive what is due for what we’ve done? I believe these leave at least large enough question that we cannot say ‘not possible’ for varying degrees of reward in heaven.

I hope you didn't mean what you just said.

We are saved by Christ's righteousness; that's the only way our works would mean anything. Our works can't save us, because we have to be saved before we can do any good works!

Meant it. But read again, my whole point is that we CANNOT be saved by works, so why would the saved in 2 Cor 5:10 appear before the judgment seat? If we're righteous in Christ what’s to be judged? If our works are judged it CANNOT be for our salvation because we cannot add anything to our salvation. So, I am proposing that there could be varying degrees of reward and that we cannot, using scripture, close off to that idea. I never said works save.