“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (Rom. 6:1.)
“What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace?” (Rom. 6:15.)
God’s answer to both these questions, which is just one question put in two ways, is the same: a strong, emphatic negative—“God forbid.”
There can be little question in the minds of any that what John means by sinning in this first letter of his, and what Paul means by sinning in Romans six, is something that a Christian should not and need not do. He may be kept from sinning, in this meaning of the word.
It may well be asked, what other meaning of the word is there? If we start out with the conception of sinning that makes every act of a Christian to be tainted with sin, do not the Scriptures become a real puzzle in their positive statements about keeping from sin? This supposed difficulty has given rise to an attempted distinction between “conscious” and “unconscious” sinning. Those who use these terms do not always have the same distinction in mind, but some refer to this falling short of “perfection” as “unconscious sinning,” adding that such sin needs cleansing but involves no guilt.
But all sin involves guilt. God cannot do other than condemn sin, whether in the Christian or in the unbeliever. Moreover, neither in First John, nor in Romans six, nor anywhere in the New Testament is there distinction made between “conscious” and “unconscious” sinning, or “known” and “unknown” sins. These distinctions between sins are made by men with the implication that we may be kept free from one kind of sinning but not from the other. Does not this make void the word of God by our traditions? For God says, through John, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye may not sin.”
We shall avoid all such difficulties if we rid ourselves of the notion that the sinfulness or the righteousness of a man’s act is to be judged by some outside standard. God’s measure is an inside standard. Sin can never be discovered in the act, but in the motive of the heart of the man who performs the act. Two men go into a restaurant and hang up their overcoats. Two other men in the restaurant take these overcoats with them when they go out. One man has stolen an overcoat. The other man has taken it by mistake, thinking he had brought his own overcoat with him, and is much distressed when he finds he has another man’s coat. But meanwhile both men have lost their coats. Nothing can be determined as to whether sin is involved until you get to the heart of the men who took the coats. One man sinned. The other man surely came short of that perfect outward standard of action, and he should not have been so thoughtless as to take the coat. The experience will doubtless make him more careful in the future in avoiding such a mistake. But he did not sin. And if our theory makes it necessary for us to say that he sinned, then we have blotted out all moral distinctions, and there is an end of urging men to come out of darkness into light.
Since sin is in the motive of the heart, it becomes clear why a man who is out of Christ is sinning all the time, in thought, word and deed. He may do many moral things and live on a high plane judged by man’s standard, but he is incapable of God’s righteousness. Only the love of God shed abroad in the heart through the Holy Spirit can make righteousness possible. A natural, unsaved man cannot please God in anything that he does. That is why he must be born again before he is capable of goodness. When he is saved he may love God with his whole heart, and then he can and does please God. And let us remember that no man can please God with sinning, whatever adjective is prefixed.
Another fruitful source of confusion in studying the Scripture teachings regarding sin is the taking of Bible statements concerning man in his natural state and applying them to the new creature in Christ Jesus.
“There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10).