English Composition II
English Composition, has been one of my more challenging classes here at GBS. However, it has also been one of the most beneficial classes that I have taken. This class taught me the styles, and techniques on how to wright papers. In turn these styles and techniques have shown themselves in all of my other classes.
This paper comes from my first year, and second semester of college. Therefore, I was still catching my bearings, and developing my style. Looking back, I see areas that could have been done better, however; for my second semester it was not bad. The purpose of the assignment was to write a paper while learning how to graft other peoples works into your paper. This was challenging at first, however; I eventually got the hang of it.
This paper comes from my first year, and second semester of college. Therefore, I was still catching my bearings, and developing my style. Looking back, I see areas that could have been done better, however; for my second semester it was not bad. The purpose of the assignment was to write a paper while learning how to graft other peoples works into your paper. This was challenging at first, however; I eventually got the hang of it.
The Meaning of Sin (Spring 2012)
Chuck Chapman
God’s Bible School
Abstract
If there can be a positive side to being a former alcoholic, it is that I have been given familiarity with the subject of sin. In my life I have spent more time than most experiencing sins indulgences, patterns, consequences, tactics, and cravings. The plus side (if there is one) to being that deep in the enemy’s council is that I now stand a greater chance of recognizing and avoiding sin. If I were to define sin in my own words I would have to say that it is “anything intentional or unintentional that separates you from God’s intimacy and presence.” The following paper is meant to share a few others definitions and classifications of sin.
I. The Meaning of Sin
The exactly definition of sin has been a heated debate for centuries now, with what seems to be no clear answer in sight. Along with it raises the question “what must I do to go to Heaven.” It is almost as if our rebellious nature is saying “how much can I get away with and still make it in?” Over the centuries many different mighty men of God have taken the pulpit, to defend what their belief in the definition of sin is to be. The simple fact is that somewhere along the way one of the various opinions is right and the rest are wrong. The law of Non-Contradiction which all of logic stands on testifies to this truth, that something either is or is not.
This brings us to the focus of this paper: that something either is sin or it is not sin. At the outset of this paper I will acknowledge that I do not intend to come to a conclusion that countless other great men of faith have attempted to and failed to prove without one hundred percent certainty. It will be my attempt to share conflicting evidence from a few of these men as to allow the reader to make an educated decision.
In an article by Kenneth Kinghorn, PH.D entitled “Biblical Concepts of Sin” he as well acknowledges that there is no precise definition of sin from the outset. The purpose of Mr. Kinghorn’s article was an attempt more so to arrive at the biblical concepts of sin. Kinghorn walks the reader through the origin of sin along with the various types while backing up his points with Scripture. Despite Kinghorn’s acknowledgement that sin is difficult to define, at one point in the article Mr. Kinghorn defines sin by writing “Sin is more than breaking a law; it is a defection from the one who gives the law.” Within this article is the driving plea that one must define sin within the biblical boundaries of the concept of sin, while not taking it to extreme in one direction or the other. Mr. Kinghorn seems to be referring mainly to John Wesley and the Wesleyan's in particular. Before moving on to Mr. Wesley’s side of the argument it is important to state Kinghorn’s foundation to his argument. Kinghorn proclaims that “there are willful intentional sins (subjective view) and there are unintentional sins (objective view) as well; both needing the atonement of Jesus Christ.”
Our next article by John Wesley entitled “On Sin in believers” Wesley targets just what the title suggests, along with the categories there within. He starts out by going through a history lesson much as Kinghorn did in the previous mentioned article while acknowledging that sin has been present in believers as far back as the early church. One of the questions that Wesley addresses in his article is can Christ be in the same heart where sin is? Wesley states that Christ can in fact be within the heart, although “Christ indeed cannot reign, where sin reigns.” Mr. Wesley does a good job of presenting the conflicting evidence of the argument within his article, although he shoots down these conflicts point by point through the remainder of his article. At this point I feel it important to state Mr. Wesley’s foundation to his article, while postponing his definition of sin until later. Mr. Wesley acknowledges that after a man is saved by grace through the Son of God, that sins remains in him to which a purging process of this sin begins. In addition He believes that Christ does live within the believer’s heart, although; Christ does not have one hundred present dominion.
Our next contributor to the exact definition of sin is by Leslie D Wilcox. Wilcox’s written works include “Profiles in Wesleyan Theology.” Unfortunately, I do not have a chapter name for the chapter that provided me with my proceeding information. However, a simple trip to the library could answer this question, for anyone who desperately wants to know. In this chapter the central topic is sin with its definition, distinctions, conflicting views, and a history of the opposing Calvinistic vs. Wesleyan view. This chapter within the book covers a lot of ground, although it all builds up to Wesley’s definition of sin. As previously promised Wesley defines sin by stating “Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God.” Therefore, given Mr. Wesley’s definition we can come to a conclusion that he believes sin to be an intentional willful act against the known will of God; while an unintentional act or a sin of ignorance against the will of God is not.
Our last source on sin is from a chapter in the book entitled “I Believe: Fundamentals of the Christian Faith” written by the bible faculty of God’s Bible School and College (The bible faculty of God’s Bible School and College., 2006) Our article comes from chapter five which is entitled “Sin: The root of every Problem” and is written by Dr. Phillip Brown.
This chapter covers a wide range of topics and as the title suggest the reason for these topics all lead back to sin. The author provides us with a fountain of knowledge on sin. Brown provides us with; a history lesson, the principles of sin, a definition of sin, and a dissecting of the dialectical oppositions much like our first author Mr. Kinghorn. Dr. Brown acknowledges that “sin according to the scriptures is both an intentional and unintentional act against the known will of God.” In addition Dr. Brown acknowledges much like Mr. Kinghorn that “both of these acts require the atonement of Jesus Christ for forgiveness and restoration.” Dr. Brown points to Leviticus 4:1- 5:6 to prove that God requires sacrifices and atonement for unintentional sins.
Therefore, Dr. Browns definition of sin is “to miss the mark.” Brown also shares that in light of Leviticus 4:1- 5:6; that sin is still sin rather we know it or not.
II. Summary
As stated at the outset of this article countless men of God have attempted to define what exactly sin is, and the ones that I have provided here today are just a few. Let’s just take a minute to recap what the various provided definitions of sin were:
As far as the underlining dialectical oppositions within these articles there is a range of beliefs. Mr. Wesley does not believe a unintentional sin to be a transgression against God, although his provided article was not about unintentional sin, so conflicting evidence was hard to gather. Mr Wilcox’s chapter was mainly a history lesson opposing the five points of Calvinism (once saved always saved) in which we were able to obtain Mr. Wesley’s provided definition. Finally, Mr. Kinghorn and Dr. Brown point to the Biblical evidence of scripture much like all the listed authors do in order to prove their point.
In this case the point is, that there are both intentional or willful sins, and unintentional sins both; of which need the atonement of Jesus Christ. This topic and some other of the topics mentioned within this paper are some of the most debated issues within the Conservative Holiness movement. The only one who can truly say what classifies as sin is or is not is of course God. Although, I am not one-hundred percent certain of the exact definition of sin, I am however certain that God will make that definition clear when we meet Him. Therefore, the more reasonable stance to take is that rather someone breaks a command of God’s willfully, or unintentionally; they should seek atonement in either case.
III. Conclusion
As stated earlier the attempt of this paper has not been to define sin, or the nature of it, however; the thrust of this paper has been meant to present conflicting evidence so as the reader may draw an educated and informed conclusion of their own. This paper has been only a summary of others articles or book chapters, and if anyone would wish to pursue this topic further, the articles and book chapters have been listed below. In addition there is a fountain of information to be pursued on the internet or at your local library. However, I believe that it is best to diligently study the pages of scripture in order to develop a biblical concept on the exact nature and definition of sin.
IV. References
Works Cited Kinghorn, K. P. (n.d.). Biblical Concepts of Sin. p. 6.
The bible faculty of God’s Bible School and College. (2006). I Believe Fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Cincinnati, Oh.
Wesley, J. (n.d.). On Sin In Believers. p. 7.
Wilcox, L. D. (1985). Profiles in Wesleyan Theology.
Chuck Chapman
God’s Bible School
Abstract
If there can be a positive side to being a former alcoholic, it is that I have been given familiarity with the subject of sin. In my life I have spent more time than most experiencing sins indulgences, patterns, consequences, tactics, and cravings. The plus side (if there is one) to being that deep in the enemy’s council is that I now stand a greater chance of recognizing and avoiding sin. If I were to define sin in my own words I would have to say that it is “anything intentional or unintentional that separates you from God’s intimacy and presence.” The following paper is meant to share a few others definitions and classifications of sin.
I. The Meaning of Sin
The exactly definition of sin has been a heated debate for centuries now, with what seems to be no clear answer in sight. Along with it raises the question “what must I do to go to Heaven.” It is almost as if our rebellious nature is saying “how much can I get away with and still make it in?” Over the centuries many different mighty men of God have taken the pulpit, to defend what their belief in the definition of sin is to be. The simple fact is that somewhere along the way one of the various opinions is right and the rest are wrong. The law of Non-Contradiction which all of logic stands on testifies to this truth, that something either is or is not.
This brings us to the focus of this paper: that something either is sin or it is not sin. At the outset of this paper I will acknowledge that I do not intend to come to a conclusion that countless other great men of faith have attempted to and failed to prove without one hundred percent certainty. It will be my attempt to share conflicting evidence from a few of these men as to allow the reader to make an educated decision.
In an article by Kenneth Kinghorn, PH.D entitled “Biblical Concepts of Sin” he as well acknowledges that there is no precise definition of sin from the outset. The purpose of Mr. Kinghorn’s article was an attempt more so to arrive at the biblical concepts of sin. Kinghorn walks the reader through the origin of sin along with the various types while backing up his points with Scripture. Despite Kinghorn’s acknowledgement that sin is difficult to define, at one point in the article Mr. Kinghorn defines sin by writing “Sin is more than breaking a law; it is a defection from the one who gives the law.” Within this article is the driving plea that one must define sin within the biblical boundaries of the concept of sin, while not taking it to extreme in one direction or the other. Mr. Kinghorn seems to be referring mainly to John Wesley and the Wesleyan's in particular. Before moving on to Mr. Wesley’s side of the argument it is important to state Kinghorn’s foundation to his argument. Kinghorn proclaims that “there are willful intentional sins (subjective view) and there are unintentional sins (objective view) as well; both needing the atonement of Jesus Christ.”
Our next article by John Wesley entitled “On Sin in believers” Wesley targets just what the title suggests, along with the categories there within. He starts out by going through a history lesson much as Kinghorn did in the previous mentioned article while acknowledging that sin has been present in believers as far back as the early church. One of the questions that Wesley addresses in his article is can Christ be in the same heart where sin is? Wesley states that Christ can in fact be within the heart, although “Christ indeed cannot reign, where sin reigns.” Mr. Wesley does a good job of presenting the conflicting evidence of the argument within his article, although he shoots down these conflicts point by point through the remainder of his article. At this point I feel it important to state Mr. Wesley’s foundation to his article, while postponing his definition of sin until later. Mr. Wesley acknowledges that after a man is saved by grace through the Son of God, that sins remains in him to which a purging process of this sin begins. In addition He believes that Christ does live within the believer’s heart, although; Christ does not have one hundred present dominion.
Our next contributor to the exact definition of sin is by Leslie D Wilcox. Wilcox’s written works include “Profiles in Wesleyan Theology.” Unfortunately, I do not have a chapter name for the chapter that provided me with my proceeding information. However, a simple trip to the library could answer this question, for anyone who desperately wants to know. In this chapter the central topic is sin with its definition, distinctions, conflicting views, and a history of the opposing Calvinistic vs. Wesleyan view. This chapter within the book covers a lot of ground, although it all builds up to Wesley’s definition of sin. As previously promised Wesley defines sin by stating “Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God.” Therefore, given Mr. Wesley’s definition we can come to a conclusion that he believes sin to be an intentional willful act against the known will of God; while an unintentional act or a sin of ignorance against the will of God is not.
Our last source on sin is from a chapter in the book entitled “I Believe: Fundamentals of the Christian Faith” written by the bible faculty of God’s Bible School and College (The bible faculty of God’s Bible School and College., 2006) Our article comes from chapter five which is entitled “Sin: The root of every Problem” and is written by Dr. Phillip Brown.
This chapter covers a wide range of topics and as the title suggest the reason for these topics all lead back to sin. The author provides us with a fountain of knowledge on sin. Brown provides us with; a history lesson, the principles of sin, a definition of sin, and a dissecting of the dialectical oppositions much like our first author Mr. Kinghorn. Dr. Brown acknowledges that “sin according to the scriptures is both an intentional and unintentional act against the known will of God.” In addition Dr. Brown acknowledges much like Mr. Kinghorn that “both of these acts require the atonement of Jesus Christ for forgiveness and restoration.” Dr. Brown points to Leviticus 4:1- 5:6 to prove that God requires sacrifices and atonement for unintentional sins.
- Leviticus 4:1-3 (New King James Version)
Therefore, Dr. Browns definition of sin is “to miss the mark.” Brown also shares that in light of Leviticus 4:1- 5:6; that sin is still sin rather we know it or not.
II. Summary
As stated at the outset of this article countless men of God have attempted to define what exactly sin is, and the ones that I have provided here today are just a few. Let’s just take a minute to recap what the various provided definitions of sin were:
- Mr. Kenneth Kinghorn :“Sin is more than breaking a law; it is a defection from the one who gives the law.”
- Mr. Wilcox quotes Mr. Wesley: “Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God.”
- Dr. Brown: “To miss the mark.”
As far as the underlining dialectical oppositions within these articles there is a range of beliefs. Mr. Wesley does not believe a unintentional sin to be a transgression against God, although his provided article was not about unintentional sin, so conflicting evidence was hard to gather. Mr Wilcox’s chapter was mainly a history lesson opposing the five points of Calvinism (once saved always saved) in which we were able to obtain Mr. Wesley’s provided definition. Finally, Mr. Kinghorn and Dr. Brown point to the Biblical evidence of scripture much like all the listed authors do in order to prove their point.
In this case the point is, that there are both intentional or willful sins, and unintentional sins both; of which need the atonement of Jesus Christ. This topic and some other of the topics mentioned within this paper are some of the most debated issues within the Conservative Holiness movement. The only one who can truly say what classifies as sin is or is not is of course God. Although, I am not one-hundred percent certain of the exact definition of sin, I am however certain that God will make that definition clear when we meet Him. Therefore, the more reasonable stance to take is that rather someone breaks a command of God’s willfully, or unintentionally; they should seek atonement in either case.
III. Conclusion
As stated earlier the attempt of this paper has not been to define sin, or the nature of it, however; the thrust of this paper has been meant to present conflicting evidence so as the reader may draw an educated and informed conclusion of their own. This paper has been only a summary of others articles or book chapters, and if anyone would wish to pursue this topic further, the articles and book chapters have been listed below. In addition there is a fountain of information to be pursued on the internet or at your local library. However, I believe that it is best to diligently study the pages of scripture in order to develop a biblical concept on the exact nature and definition of sin.
IV. References
Works Cited Kinghorn, K. P. (n.d.). Biblical Concepts of Sin. p. 6.
The bible faculty of God’s Bible School and College. (2006). I Believe Fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Cincinnati, Oh.
Wesley, J. (n.d.). On Sin In Believers. p. 7.
Wilcox, L. D. (1985). Profiles in Wesleyan Theology.