Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsTransgression And Sin
Transgression Sin - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 25th Oct, 2009 - 1:16am
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 16 - Views: 9323
What is the Difference?
Post Date: 28th Jul, 2004 - 12:00am / Post ID: #
Transgression And Sin
Transgression and Sin?
What is the difference? Is there a difference?
"In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations.
One is held accountable for transgression. If you do not act on unworthy
persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church
discipline."
(Boyd K. Packer, "The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected," Ensign, Nov. 2003, 26)
Sponsored Links:
Sin Transgression
In the context of the above quotation, transgression seems to be used to mean the act of breaking a law when tempted.
Technically speaking, as I understand it, to transgress means to break a law; to sin means to break a law with the knowledge that it is against the will of the Lord so to do.
So every sin is a transgression, but not every transgression a sin. But the word is not always used that way. Sometimes it simply refers to sin.
Dubhdara.
Transgression And Sin Studies Doctrine Mormon
I agree with your definition dubhdara, that all sin is transgression, but not all transgression is sin. I read about this recently but can't recall the source.
It's significant, in my opinion, that Adam's fall is considered transgression.
| QUOTE |
| 2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. (Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:2) |
Roz
Sin Transgression
There is indeed a difference. A person commits sin when someone has the knowledge yet chooses to break the law. A transgression is when someone does something without that prior knowledge. Adam's transgression is called that way because he did not know (until that point) the difference between good and evil.
This is really unique to LDS doctrine in general. I found the following, very informative:
| QUOTE |
| McKeever and Johnson, like many other critics, seem to have a problem with the LDS remaining consistent with the fall being referred to as a result of "transgression" as opposed to "sin." After quoting a few LDS leaders who refer to transgression as an entirely different act than sin, they hit us with 1 John 3:4 which states "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." This is all well and good, but the referenced scripture doesn't say all transgression is sin. It simply says that if someone sins, then it is a transgression of a law. Naturally, all sin is a transgression, but this doesn't necessarily mean all transgression is sin.23 This is perfectly acceptable in LDS thought. James further distinguishes this concept when he said, "therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."24 This tells us that sin is only a sin when the person is aware of goodness, yet denies it. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil (right or wrong) until after they partook of the fruit. So keeping in line with James' definition of sin, the LDS explanation fits perfectly. The strongest case presented by McKeever and Johnson was Romans 5:12-15 which refers to Adam's "sin." They really wreck their argument when they quote verses 18-19 and say: Notice the phrase in verse 19:"by one man's [Adam's] disobedience many were made sinners [not merely transgressors]. Latter-day Saints also agree that the fall caused sin to enter into the world so this part of their argument is moot. Everything after Adam's transgression was considered sin because mankind had known the difference between good and evil. They should have stuck with the first part that mentions the transgression as sin. What the LDS do recognize, however, is that the fall is referred to as a "transgression" almost all of the time in the Bible. In fact, the verse they presented from Paul is the only biblical instance where Adam's transgression is called a sin. After James has shed some light on what constitutes "sin," we must ask ourselves if there is really any difference between "sin" and "transgression" and if Paul could have understood these terms interchangeably. Obviously he does, because in verse 14-which was skipped over by our authors-Paul says that it was Adam's "transgression." Also in Acts 1:25 Paul refers to Judas' obvious sin as "transgression." So it seems perfectly clear to me that Paul used the two terms interchangeably. Does the Hebrew (Old Testament) usage of transgression blend well with James's definition and the LDS description? If there is absolutely no difference between the two, and they are actually their own definition for one another, then why are there so many scriptures in the Old Testament which refers to one's sins and then their transgressions? You'd think they would kill two birds with one stone by just saying one or the other. For example, Psalms 25:7 states "Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions," and Joshua 24:19 states "he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins"25 Wouldn't the second phrase be automatically implied by the first, if our critic's strict definition stands true? Clearly it is plausible that they could stand for two different things. If they were interchangeable in the Hebrew, then why doesn't Genesis (or the entire Hebrew Old Testament for that matter) mention the transgression of Adam as "sin?" In fact, the first time the Bible mentioned sin was with Cain and not Adam or Eve;26 the first biblically attested transgression after mankind knew the difference between good and evil. Again, this conforms perfectly well with James 4:17 and the LDS understanding of their lack of knowledge between good and evil. |
Post Date: 11th Oct, 2009 - 4:38pm / Post ID: #
Transgression Sin
Name: Brandon
Comments: I appreciate the posts on this site. One question I have always had, however, is why our Father in Heaven would submit a commandment not to partake of the Fruit of Good and Evil if it was part of his plan all along. Would obeying this commandment have thwarted the Plan of Salvation? It is a paradox I have pondered frequently but never understood.
Transgression Sin Mormon Doctrine Studies
One thing to remember is that we LDS have different meaning to some words then what most Christians use. For example our use of omnipresence, omnipotent have very different meaning in traditional Christianity. (By traditional Christianity we do not say that God is omnipresence, or omnipotent yet we do use these words to describe God).
Transgression is one of these words. In the LDS theology there is a difference between transgression and sin. (Although I am not sure that I buy it completely. Adam seemed to know it was wrong when he was tempted. That shows some understanding of right and wrong to me.) However in traditional Christianity there is not a difference between sin and transgression. If you do look at an unabridged dictionary the word "sin" is used to define transgression. So it really depends in what context we are referring too.
TOPIC: Transgression And Sin