Arguing Definitions

The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. (Romans 14:22-23)

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. (1 John 3:4 NKJV)

Anyone who has a background similar to my own will immediately recognize the tension set up by putting these two verses in close proximity. I could not count the number of heated arguments that have been generated over the years between people taking rigid positions on one side or the other using one of these verses as the “true” definition of sin as opposed to the other verse.

But it doesn't take much reasoning by a sensible, open-minded person to realize shortly that it doesn't make much sense to try to pit one verse against another from the Bible while claiming to defend the true Word of God. The tension that arises from looking at these two verses together is completely artificial and arbitrary within the minds and heart of the people caught up in the argument, not at all in the Word of God itself. In fact, upon closer examination it can be quickly seen that the verses and their supporting contexts are actually saying nearly the very same thing but with different word descriptions and from different human writers.

The problem arises largely because people who end up in arguments do so because they have a strong personal agenda that they want to promote with far-reaching implications that need to be carefully shored up and protected from careful, objective analysis. Truth never suffers from close, positive critical examination, so if a person becomes defensive about their choice of how they string their proof-texts together then it is quite likely that their careful arrangements of verses (and even the required translation they insist on using) cannot hold up under more honest scrutiny.

I again sense that the real problem in most arguments is the condition of the spirits of the people involved far more than the congruency of the texts they are using to discount another text. These two definitions of sin are not in the least in conflict with each other but are highly complimentary. So if I find myself feeling defensive when one or the other is used then there is very likely a lie-based belief deeply rooted in my own heart that is unwilling to be exposed or examined. Defensiveness itself is one of the most obvious symptoms of a lie embedded in the heart trying to avoid detection.

Another problem with truly understanding the meaning of these verses is the often repeated problem of faulty definitions themselves. When words are used to define other words, it is necessary to have a working definition of at least a few words that are correct to start with or faulty thinking and assumptions will only produce more faulty assumptions. In this verse in Romans it is necessary to have a somewhat proper understanding of the word faith in order to arrive at a proper definition of the word sin. Otherwise nothing will be accomplished by trying to argue one opinion against another.

I have come more and more to realize that useful definitions require much more than simply achieving a high level of intellectual accuracy in the use of linguistics as helpful as that may be. Yes, it is important to go back and do some research many times to correct our faulty assumptions about the real, factual meaning of many words – that is extremely important and helpful many times. But unless the spirit of a person is also listening and open to the promptings of the Spirit of God who alone can provide us with the real significance of what we are studying, all of our attempts to “prove” what we think the text is saying will amount to nothing more than an exercise in futility.

As I have looked at these two verses that talk about the definition of what sin really is this morning in their respective contexts, I am surprised that so much controversy has occurred and so much bad blood has been generated in the arguments that have taken place. Those who typically argue that the “best” definition of sin is law-breaking usually argue with a spirit of animosity which is exactly the opposite of the context from which they lift their proof-text. Take a look at where this verse comes from.

See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know Him. Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when He is revealed, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as he is. And all who have this hope in Him purify themselves, just as He is pure. Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. (1 John 3:1-4 NRSV)

The whole surrounding passage is filled with the context of living in a spirit of genuine love. So is the verse in Romans in a different context? Is Romans emphasizing faith more than love as John does? Take a look at what Paul just said a few verses earlier.

For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. (Romans 14:15)

I can remember myself being caught up in these very heated arguments with my own Dad about which of these verses should be the more accurate description of what defines sin. And I also remember being convicted right during the argument that I needed to pay attention to the condition of my own spirit and the effect it was having on him far more than I needed to “win” the argument that I already knew he was unwilling to concede. For the real issue behind the heated debate was not really about who had the better definition of sin but was about the pain being generated at the spirit level that was far more significant in God's eyes. I was being brought to realize over a number of years that the real problem was not just my definitions of the words in the Bible but more importantly was the relationship between me and those I was supposed to love at the level of the spirit.

The more that I have learned about the true definition of real faith the easier it has become to see the full integration of these two verses with each other. I have come to realize that nearly all the definitions that I grew up with about all religious words and phrases had to be repeatedly challenged and updated as the Spirit was leading me deeper and deeper into a heart relationship with the Source of everything I was reading. But in the process I also had to remember the admonition given in the previous verse that I needed to apply to myself. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. (Romans 14:22)

I came to realize that it is not my responsibility to get everyone else to believe exactly the way I believe, as hard as that is to accept. What is far more important than having perfect theology is having a humble heart willing to accept and love those who do not view things in agreement with me. I do not want to end up in the group described by Jesus as those recounting their many achievements in His name as the reasons why they should be able to get into heaven. I want to learn to know Him intimately so that He will not have to say to me, “I never knew you.”

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:12-13)

(next in series)