2014年11月22日星期六
古德恩: 系统神学 Are There Degrees of Sin?
Are There Degrees of Sin?
Are some sins worse than others? The question may be answered either yes or no, depending on the sense in which it is intended.
a. Legal Guilt:
In terms of our legal standing before God, any one sin, even what may seem to be a very small one, makes us legally guilty before God and therefore worthy of eternal punishment. Adam and Eve learned this in the Garden of Eden, where God told them that one act of disobedience would result in the penalty of death (Gen. 2:17). And Paul affirms that “the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation” (Rom. 5:16). This one sin made Adam and Eve sinners before God, no longer able to stand in his holy presence.
This truth remains valid through the history of the human race. Paul (quoting Deut. 27:26) affirms it: “Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them” (Gal. 3:10). And James declares:
Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” said also, “Do not kill.” If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. (James 2:10-11)
Therefore, in terms of legal guilt, all sins are equally bad because they make us legally guilty before God and constitute us as sinners.
b. Results in Life and in Relationship with God:
On the other hand, some sins are worse than others in that they have more harmful consequences in our lives and in the lives of others, and, in terms of our personal relationship to God as Father, they arouse his displeasure more and bring more serious disruption to our fellowship with him.
Scripture sometimes speaks of degrees of seriousness of sin. When Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, he said, “he who delivered me to you has the greater sin” (John 19:11). The reference is apparently to Judas, who had known Jesus intimately for three years and yet willfully betrayed him to death. Though Pilate had authority over Jesus by virtue of his governmental office and was wrong to allow an innocent man to be condemned to death, the sin of Judas was far “greater,” probably because of the far greater knowledge and malice connected with it.
When God showed Ezekiel visions of sins in the temple of Jerusalem, he first showed Ezekiel certain things, then said, “But you will see still greater abominations” (Ezek. 8:6). Next he showed Ezekiel the secret sins of some of the elders of Israel and said, “You will see still greater abominations which they commit” (Ezek. 8:13). Then the Lord showed Ezekiel a picture of women weeping for a Babylonian deity and said, “Have you seen this, O son of man? You will see still greater abominations than these” (Ezek. 8:15). Finally, he showed Ezekiel twenty-five men in the temple, with their backs to the Lord and worshiping the sun instead. Here clearly we have degrees of increasing sin and hatefulness before God.
In the Sermon of the Mount, when Jesus says, “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19), he implies that there are lesser and greater commandments. Similarly, though he agrees that it is appropriate to give a tithe even on the household spices that people use, he pronounces woes on the Pharisees for neglecting “the weightier matters of the law justice and mercy and faith” (Matt. 23:23). In both cases Jesus distinguishes between lesser and greater commandments, thus implying that some sins are worse than other sins in terms of God’s own evaluation of their importance.
In general, we may say that some sins have more harmful consequences than others if they bring more dishonor to God or if they cause more harm to ourselves, to others, or to the church. Moreover, those sins that are done willfully, repeatedly, and knowingly, with a calloused heart, are more displeasing to God than those that are done out of ignorance and are not repeated, or are done with a mixture of good and impure motives and are followed by remorse and repentance. Thus the laws that God gave to Moses in Leviticus make provisions for cases where people sin “unwittingly” (Lev. 4:2, 13, 22). Unintentional sin is still sin: “If any one sins, doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity” (Lev. 5:17). Nonetheless, the penalties required and the degree of God’s displeasure that results from the sin are less than in the case of intentional sin.
On the other hand, sins committed with “a high hand,” that is, with arrogance and disdain for God’s commandments, were viewed very seriously: “But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people” (Num. 15:30; cf. vv. 27-29).
We can readily see how some sins have much more harmful consequences for ourselves and others and for our relationship with God. If I were to covet my neighbor’s car, that would be sin before God. But if my coveting led me to actually steal the car, that would be more serious sin. If in the course of stealing the car I also fought with my neighbor and injured him or recklessly injured someone else as I drove the car, that would be even more serious sin.
Similarly, if a new Christian, who previously had a tendency to lose his temper and get into fights, begins witnessing to his unbelieving friends and, one day, is so provoked he loses his temper and actually strikes someone, that is certainly sin in God’s sight. But if a mature pastor or other prominent Christian leader were to lose his temper publicly and strike someone, that would be even more serious in God’s sight, both because of the harm that would come to the reputation of the gospel and because those in leadership positions are held to a higher standard of accountability by God: “We who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1; cf. Luke 12:48). Our conclusion, then, is that in terms of results and in terms of the degree of God’s displeasure some sins are certainly worse than others.
However, the distinction between degrees of seriousness of sin does not imply an endorsement of the Roman Catholic teaching that sins can be put into the two categories of “venial” and “mortal.” In Roman Catholic teaching, a venial sin can be forgiven, but often after punishments in this life or in Purgatory (after death, but before entrance into heaven). A mortal sin is a sin that causes spiritual death and cannot be forgiven; it excludes people from the kingdom of God.
According to Scripture, however, all sins are “mortal” in that even the smallest sin makes us legally guilty before God and worthy of eternal punishment. Yet even the most serious of sins are forgiven when one comes to Christ for salvation (note the combination of a list of sins that exclude from the kingdom of God and the affirmation that the Corinthians who had committed them have been saved by Christ in 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Thus, in that sense, all sins are “venial.” The Roman Catholic separation of sins into the category of “mortal” and “venial,” calling some sins (such as suicide) “mortal,” while calling others (such as dishonesty, anger, or lust) “venial” sins can very easily lead either to carelessness with respect to some sins that greatly hinder sanctification and effectiveness in the Lord’s work, or, with respect to other sins, to excessive fear, despair, and inability ever to have assurance of forgiveness. And we should realize that the same exact action (such as losing one’s temper and striking someone in the example above) can be more or less serious, depending on the person and circumstances involved. It is much better simply to recognize that sins can vary in terms of their results and in terms of the degree to which they disrupt our relationship with God and incur his displeasure, and leave it at that. Then we do not go beyond the general teaching of Scripture on this subject.
The distinction that Scripture makes in degrees of sin does have positive value. First, it helps us to know where we should put more effort in our own attempts to grow in personal holiness. Second, it helps us to decide when we should simply overlook a minor fault in a friend or family member and when it would be appropriate to talk with an individual about some evident sin (see James 5:19-20). Third, it may help us decide when church discipline is appropriate, and it provides an answer to the objection that is sometimes raised against exercising church discipline, in which it is said that “we are all guilty of sin, so we have no business meddling in anyone else’s life.” Though we are all indeed guilty of sin, nonetheless, there are some sins that so evidently harm the church and relationships within the church that they must be dealt with directly. Fourth, this distinction may also help us realize that there is some basis for civil governments to have laws and penalties prohibiting certain kinds of wrongdoing (such as murder or stealing), but not other kinds of wrongdoing (such as anger, jealousy, greed, or selfish use of one’s possessions). It is not inconsistent to say that some kinds of wrongdoing require civil punishment but not all kinds of wrongdoing require it.
希腊文罪-hamartia
1. Contemporary postmodern theater moves the ground for the execution of tragedy from the hamartia of the individual tragic hero to the tragic hero's inability to have agency over his own life, without even the free will to make mistakes.
当代的后现代剧场的举动地面为执行的悲剧，从hamartia的个人悲剧英雄以悲剧英雄的无力有机构超过自己的生命，甚至没有自由意志作出的错误。
2. Contemporary postmodern theater moves the ground for the execution of tragedy from the hamartia of the individual tragic hero to the tragic hero`s inability to have agency over his own life, without even the free will to make mistakes.
同时代的后现代作品，已经从个别的悲剧性的英雄的悲剧性的错误，移动到了悲剧性的人物无法自主自己的生活，甚至无法自主控制不去犯错误。已经由典型的希腊式的，命运由上帝主宰变化成个体的思想被现实和经历所磨砺。
3. In chapter thirteen, Aristotle outlines an ideal of the central character of tragedy, the so-called tragic hero, and identifies the source of the character's downfall with something called hamartia .
在第十三章，亚里斯多德描画了一个悲剧中心角色－－悲剧主人公的理想，并指出该角色的堕落是因为一种叫「悲剧性缺陷」的东西。
4. An instance is provided by Aristotle's famous saying that the typical tragic hero is one who falls from high state or fame, not through vice or depravity, but by some great _hamartia_. _Hamartia_ means originally a 'bad shot' or 'error', but is currently used for 'offence' or 'sin'.
亚里斯多德的一句名言提供了一个例证：典型的悲剧英雄是这样的人，他从高尚生活或者名誉中跌落并非由于罪恶或者堕落，而是由于某种巨大的"hamartia"，"hamartia"的原意是"坏的尝试"或者"过失"，但现在用为"冒犯"或者"罪恶"。
http://www.ichacha.net/hamartia.html
2014年11月20日星期四
The Original Hebrew word for "sin" has been wrongly translated
... Its true meaning will pleasantly surprise you!
The original word sin means - to miss.
It doesn’t mean to commit something wrong; it simply means to miss, to be absent.
The Hebrew root for the word sin, means to miss.
That exists in a few English words: misconduct, misbehavior.
To miss means not to be there, doing something without being present there — this is the only sin. And the only virtue: while you are doing something you are fully alert — what Gurdjieff calls selfremembering, what Buddha calls being rightly mindful, what Krishnamurti calls awareness, what Kabir has called SURATI. To be there! — that’s all that is needed, nothing more. You need not change anything, and even if you try to change you cannot"
The original Hebrew word for sin is very beautiful. By translating it as “sin,” Christians have missed the very message of Jesus. The original Hebrew word for sin is so totally different from your idea of sin that it will be a surprise to you.
The root word means forgetfulness;
it has nothing to do with what you are doing.
The whole thing is whether you are doing it with conscious being or out of unconsciousness.
Are you doing it with a self-remembering or have you completely forgotten yourself?
Any action of unconsciousness is sin. The action may look virtuous, but it cannot be. You may create a beautiful façade, a character, a certain virtuousness; you may speak the truth, you may avoid lies; you may try to be moral, and so on and so forth. But if all this is coming from unconsciousness, it is all sin. It is because of this that Jesus has a tremendously significant saying. He says, “If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away. It is much better for you to lose a part of your body than to have your whole body throw into hell.”
Now, if you don’t understand the real meaning of sin, you are bound to misinterpret the whole statement and Jesus will look too harsh, too violent. Saying, “If you right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away,” does not look like his statement. A man of profound love and compassion, he cannot say this, he cannot be so violent. But this is how Christians have interpreted him.
What he means is this: Whatsoever causes you to forget yourself, Even if it is your right eye… That is just to emphasize the fact. It is simply a way of talking, an emphasis: “If your right eye causes you to forget yourself, then take it out and throw it away.” He is not saying anything that has to be taken literally; it is a metaphor. He is saying that it is better to be blind than to be forgetful of yourself, because the blind man who remembers himself is not blind, he has the real eye. But if a man who has eyes forgets himself, what is the use of having eyes? He cannot see even himself; what ELSE can he see?
By OSHO
It doesn’t mean to commit something wrong; it simply means to miss, to be absent.
The Hebrew root for the word sin, means to miss.
That exists in a few English words: misconduct, misbehavior.
To miss means not to be there, doing something without being present there — this is the only sin. And the only virtue: while you are doing something you are fully alert — what Gurdjieff calls selfremembering, what Buddha calls being rightly mindful, what Krishnamurti calls awareness, what Kabir has called SURATI. To be there! — that’s all that is needed, nothing more. You need not change anything, and even if you try to change you cannot"
The original Hebrew word for sin is very beautiful. By translating it as “sin,” Christians have missed the very message of Jesus. The original Hebrew word for sin is so totally different from your idea of sin that it will be a surprise to you.
The root word means forgetfulness;
it has nothing to do with what you are doing.
The whole thing is whether you are doing it with conscious being or out of unconsciousness.
Are you doing it with a self-remembering or have you completely forgotten yourself?
Any action of unconsciousness is sin. The action may look virtuous, but it cannot be. You may create a beautiful façade, a character, a certain virtuousness; you may speak the truth, you may avoid lies; you may try to be moral, and so on and so forth. But if all this is coming from unconsciousness, it is all sin. It is because of this that Jesus has a tremendously significant saying. He says, “If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away. It is much better for you to lose a part of your body than to have your whole body throw into hell.”
Now, if you don’t understand the real meaning of sin, you are bound to misinterpret the whole statement and Jesus will look too harsh, too violent. Saying, “If you right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away,” does not look like his statement. A man of profound love and compassion, he cannot say this, he cannot be so violent. But this is how Christians have interpreted him.
What he means is this: Whatsoever causes you to forget yourself, Even if it is your right eye… That is just to emphasize the fact. It is simply a way of talking, an emphasis: “If your right eye causes you to forget yourself, then take it out and throw it away.” He is not saying anything that has to be taken literally; it is a metaphor. He is saying that it is better to be blind than to be forgetful of yourself, because the blind man who remembers himself is not blind, he has the real eye. But if a man who has eyes forgets himself, what is the use of having eyes? He cannot see even himself; what ELSE can he see?
By OSHO
订阅：
博文 (Atom)