Puritan Board Junior
How would you prove from the Bible that we have secret sins in contrast to the idea that all our sinning is conscious?
I'm not sure what you mean by "of omission". If you mean the Catholic teaching of sin of omission which means a failure to do something one can and ought to do, then yes, it is included, but that's not the point. I am asking whether every sin committed by a person must be conciously perceived like in John 9:41 and James 4:17 above; that there is no sin committed that is hidden from us (whether by lack of understanding or a defiled conscience).Are you asking if it is possible to commit sins of omission?
I agree, but not to the point of complete silence. Read everything I've said here. Also, if you want to insist that conscience can be completely silenced, then start throwing verses.The conscience can be seared though, and dulled to the detection of sin.
Exactly, that was my former position; that we could sin and not realize it whatsoever (i.e., a secret sin to ourselves) and still be held accountable for it.Trying to follow your thread here: I think you are asking if we commit sins that we are not conscious of? And if we are not conscious of them, are we therefore "blind" to them and subsequently not held accountable for them via John 9:41?
That verse silenced me,You might wish to look at Leviticus 5:17ff before proceeding too far.
In other words, in this verse as constantly throughout his epistle, James incites us not to let faith or knowledge lie barren, but to affect our practice. It's not part of his scope to affirm that knowledge is essential to sin, only that knowledge not practiced simply leads us deeper into sin.In this verse the apostle taketh off the prejudice and cavil whereby his admonition might be slighted and evaded. They might reply, We have no need to be taught such a plain lesson; we know that life is short, and that God's providence governeth all things. Do you, saith the apostle, know all this? then you are the more obliged to subject your desires to his will and pleasure, which he proveth by this general rule.
The physically blind man was healed in body and soul; the sins of the sighted and learned Pharisees remain upon them: the difference is their attitude to Christ....their being sensible of misery, were an evidence that they lay near mercy... "If ye were blind," (in your own esteem, and coming to me with it) "ye should have no sin," to wit, in comparison of your guilt now, and I would really pardon and heal you, and it should not "remain," as is after declared. Men's conceit of their own condition as good enough is a sin against the very remedy....
Ruben, I understand ironic talk, and that there are terms in the Bible that have a variety of meanings depending on the context (e.g., "world"). However, in the instance of James 4:17, it seems like the author, James, had not written precisely what was said by Paul. Or was it the tone of Paul's voice that made "sin" sound like "a great sin" to the crowds?I'm curious as to what changed with regard to your view of God's word.