Is there such a thing as "finite" sin??

[Homer]

It seems to be fashionable in some circles to speak of "finite sin".
When I was young I used live grasshoppers for bait when fishing. I also used live minnows for bait. In the south, fish are used as bait to catch alligators weighing hundreds of pounds. But how would we feel if a live puppy was used for alligator bait? And how unimaginably horrible it would be to use an infant child for alligator bait! But from grasshopper to infant child the sin is the same, only the victim is different. We place little value on a grasshopper and almost infinite value on a child. It is the victim that the sin is against that determines the gravity of the sin. And how much more valuable is God compared to a child? Is it even rational to speak of finite sin against One who is infinite? Or is He not of infinite worth? God is the ultimate victim of all sin.

[steve7150]

It seems to be fashionable in some circles to speak of "finite sin".






I think in the OT God gave different kinds of punishments for different kinds of sin therefore it seems that there are varying degrees of sin and if so then only finite things are measurable.
God is infinite but i don't think that makes something done for or against him an infinite action, we can love the Lord one day, yet another day not love the Lord, we can praise God one day yet curse God the next, therefore i think sin is not a different type of category.
Scripture said in the times of ignorance God overlooked sins but now that the Pharisees could "see", their guilt remained, so God either forgave or did'nt hold certains sinners & the sins they committed in ignorance to be infinite.

[Michelle]

Hi Homer,

It seems to be fashionable in some circles to speak of "finite sin".

I most likely (well, definitely) don't move in fashionable circles, so I have little idea about what "finite sin" means to these people. Could you explain a little?

When I was young I used live grasshoppers for bait when fishing. I also used live minnows for bait. In the south, fish are used as bait to catch alligators weighing hundreds of pounds. But how would we feel if a live puppy was used for alligator bait? And how unimaginably horrible it would be to use an infant child for alligator bait! But from grasshopper to infant child the sin is the same, only the victim is different. We place little value on a grasshopper and almost infinite value on a child. It is the victim that the sin is against that determines the gravity of the sin. And how much more valuable is God compared to a child? Is it even rational to speak of finite sin against One who is infinite? Or is He not of infinite worth? God is the ultimate victim of all sin.

A little quibble about your illustration: If using bait to catch fish is, indeed, a sin, it's not the same as causing the death of a child; that would be murder.

[steve]

And it would be murder whether the child was a peasant or royalty. The sin against human life would be equal, regardless of station, whereas the taking of an animal's life would not be sin, regardless of species. In the case of a puppy, it would be objectionable, but not sinful.

[Homer]

But from grasshopper to infant child the sin is the same, only the victim is different.

Oops! Should have said the action is the same.

I think in the OT God gave different kinds of punishments for different kinds of sin therefore it seems that there are varying degrees of sin and if so then only finite things are measurable.

I agree there are degrees of sin, yet James said if you break one part of the law you are guilty of breaking all of it.

the taking of an animal's life would not be sin, regardless of species

Unless the animal is your neighbor's (Exodus 22) in which case, again, the victim establishes the sin rather than the action. The execution (action) of a murderer (victim) is acceptable because of his status.

I have little idea about what "finite sin" means to these people.

All sin can be measured and punishment must be limited.

[steve7150]

the taking of an animal's life would not be sin, regardless of species

Unless the animal is your neighbor's (Exodus 22) in which case, again, the victim establishes the sin rather than the action. The execution (action) of a murderer (victim) is acceptable because of his status.




I think in Proverbs it says "a righteous man regards his beast" which although it may not be a law sounds like a principal & perhaps killing an animal for some selfish or cruel reason may be a sin.

[benstenson]

I think in Proverbs it says "a righteous man regards his beast" which although it may not be a law sounds like a principal & perhaps killing an animal for some selfish or cruel reason may be a sin.

I agree with this - and I often think of that proverb. Many creatures are obviously capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. An animal's experience of pleasure has value just like a human's experience of pleasure has value. Animals are not as valuable as people but they are still valuable and their well-being is valuable for its own sake. Because of this I think it is wrong to hunt (or fish) for sport. Even if fish could not feel the hooks of sport-fishing, I don't think it is a mark of wisdom and benevolence to poke holes in a fish's face for your own entertainment.

[Michelle]

Hi Homer,

I've been thinking about this during the last couple of days, and I have a few thoughts.

First of all (working backward) you said:

God is the ultimate victim of all sin.

This may just be an objection to your word choice (and I'm eager and willing to be shown I'm wrong) but referring to God as the victim of sin puts me off. Maybe my modern mindset casts a victim as a diminished person, a person who has been hurt, harmed, or damaged in some way. I don't believe God can be diminished. I think His name can be defamed by our sin and I think His glory can be diminished in the world's eyes by our sin, but I don't think God is victimized by our sin.

Is it even rational to speak of finite sin against One who is infinite?

I don't know if it's rational or not. I think you're saying that an action directed toward One who is infinite is thus infinite as well. Is that rational? Wouldn't that legitimatize the idea of once saved, always saved? Wouldn't repeating a sinner's prayer in one's youth secure salvation forever since it was directed toward an infinite God, and thus becomes and infinite act? (I'm not sure...maybe you subscribe to once saved, always saved?)

It is the victim that the sin is against that determines the gravity of the sin.

Interestingly, your argument is that all sin is infinite, but here you make the case that the victim determines the gravity, which, as steve7150 pointed out, means you can measure (or at least rank) sins, which means they are finite. Your argument moves along in increasing gravity like this:

• Killing a grasshopper is of little importance, and could possibly be beneficial
  
  Killing a puppy for selfish reasons might or might not be a sin (steve7150 and benstenson make good arguments that it might be a sin)
  
  Killing a child would definitely be a sin
  
  Offending God is infinite sin.

In making your case, you create the measurements you seek to discredit. (And also create the possibility that Steve warned about - that some humans have more value than others, which is another fashionable idea. Convince me that the argument for abortion funding does not rest on the premise that poor children are better off dead and society is better off without them. But I seriously digress...)

I don't think that sin is determined by the victim. I think that sin is determined by the heart of the sinner. Eating meat sacrificed to idols is not in and of itself a sin (who is the victim here?) but a person who doubts is condemned if he eats (Romans 14:23) or sins against Christ if he offends a brother by eating. (1 Corinthians 8:12-13)

Morality is based in the character of God. Sin is in opposition to the character of God. I think you're objecting to those of us who have trouble reconciling eternal conscious torment in hell as the fate of unrepentant sinners with love, mercy, and justice, which the character of God. You said: All sin can be measured and punishment must be limited. I can't say for sure that punishment must be limited, but it's hard for my mind to reconcile eternal punishment. If that is God's plan, it must be just and loving. Or does God's infiniteness put limits on love and justice (now there's an idea that makes my eyes spin and my head hurt!)

[darinhouston]

I think the whole topic really points out the "category error" in trying to relate the gravity of one's sin with the nature of God. I think His holiness (or other-ness or apart-ness) makes it completely unreasonable to try and relate these concepts where He has not.

[Homer]

Hi Michelle,
I hope to respond in more detail later, but for now:

This may just be an objection to your word choice (and I'm eager and willing to be shown I'm wrong) but referring to God as the victim of sin puts me off. Maybe my modern mindset casts a victim as a diminished person, a person who has been hurt, harmed, or damaged in some way. I don't believe God can be diminished. I think His name can be defamed by our sin and I think His glory can be diminished in the world's eyes by our sin, but I don't think God is victimized by our sin.

It is my understanding that the Jews of Jesus' day believed one was only permitted to forgive a sin of which they were the victim. The forgiveness of all sin was never permitted and only something God was able to do. According to Jewish beliefs of the time, only God is the victim of all sin. Jesus is God and suffered for all sin.

David recognized this, I think; Psalm 51:4: "Against you, you only, have I sinned......"