The following post is imported here to discuss the question - Are there any excuses for sinning?

I believe the Bible promises that teach there is no excuse for sinning include temptations that are not only "common" to mankind but that they include every temptation known to mankind. However, I also realize certain temptations do not apply to certain people at certain times in their life:

For example, the temptation to violate the Sabbath is a temptation common to mankind. Again, there is no such thing as a temptation that is not common to mankind. Nevertheless, certain people are unaware of the Sabbath commandment, thus, they violate the Sabbath ignorantly. As such, their sin does not involve temptation.

But, the question is - Is their sin excusable? If so, then can it also be forgiven without the atoning blood of Jesus?

Do you mean can a person experience forgiveness, or pardon, without the atoning blood of Jesus? If so, then the answer is no. There was no other way for man to be reconciled to God than through the sacrifice of Christ.

I think that Paul, John and the others spoke to that fact that those who exercise faith in Christ will overcome sin.

Good point, Tom. But the question remains - Is their sin excusable? Are sins of ignorance excusable?

I'm not sure what you mean be excusable.



Does this address your question?

Sort of. Jesus said something similar - "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." (John 9:41) So, is it correct to conclude there are two categories of sin:

1. Non-accountable sin, uncondemned sin.

2. Accountable sin, condemned sin.

Is uncondemned sinning excusable? That is, in the Sabbath example you quoted, was incorrectly commencing the Sabbath a sin? Was there an excuse for their sin? Does this kind of sinning require atonement? If not, why not?

Or, in this case, was it considered not sinning? Does the phrase "there is no sin" (in your quote) mean they were not sining? And, as such, is atonement necessary? If so, why?

The following inspired insights are helpful:

The tempter's agency is not to be accounted an excuse for one wrong act. Satan is jubilant when he hears the professed followers of Christ making excuses for their deformity of character. It is these excuses that lead to sin. There is no excuse for sinning. A holy temper, a Christlike life, is accessible to every repenting, believing child of God. {DA 311.3}

The honest seeker after truth will not plead ignorance of the law as an excuse for transgression. Light was within his reach. God's Word is plain, and Christ has bidden him search the Scriptures. He reveres God's law as holy, just, and good, and he repents of his transgression. {Ev 372.2}

Men and women frame many excuses for their proneness to sin. Sin is represented as a necessity, an evil that cannot be overcome. But sin is not a necessity. {FLB 219.4}

No man without his own consent can be overcome by Satan. The tempter has no power to control the will or to force the soul to sin. He may distress, but he cannot contaminate. He can cause agony, but not defilement. The fact that Christ has conquered should inspire His followers with courage to fight manfully the battle against sin and Satan. {GC 510.3}

But upon him who looks to Jesus as the author and finisher of his faith, Satan's temptations have no power. He cannot cause to sin the one who will accept by faith the virtues of Him who was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. {Mar 91.3}

Is uncondemned sinning excusable?

If sins of ignorance do not incur the frown of God, doesn't that mean they are excusable? God is, in fact, excusing them on the grounds of ignorance, isn't He?

That is, in the Sabbath example you quoted, was incorrectly commencing the Sabbath a sin?

In the same sense that ignorantly keeping Sunday is a sin, it is.

Was there an excuse for their sin? Does this kind of sinning require atonement? If not, why not?

Given that "atonement" is "at-one-ment," if one is ignorant of doing something wrong, then it doesn't seem that anything needs to be done for at-one-ment, other than making known the error to the ignorant party.

Or, in this case, was it considered not sinning? Does the phrase "there is no sin" (in your quote) mean they were not sining? And, as such, is atonement necessary? If so, why?

In the context of the quote, "there is no sin" means they were not sinning. Given "atonement" means "at-one-ment," nothing needed to be done, because the ignorant party was not aware that there was a problem, and the other party, God, was not upset either, so the unity of the two parties was not impacted, apart from the blessing that would be missed by not being "in" the Sabbath, so to speak. So all that needs to be done is for the ignorant party to be made aware of what they were ignorant of.

TE: If sins of ignorance do not incur the frown of God, doesn't that mean they are excusable? God is, in fact, excusing them on the grounds of ignorance, isn't He?

MM: But who was more innocent of sinning ignorantly than Eve? She was deceived. Plus, she was unfamiliar with the character of God. She didn't know God well enough to see through Satan's deception. She was not armed and fortified with a saving knowledge of God's character. Who was more ill prepared to resist Satan's temptations than Eve? Whose sin was more excusable than hers? And, yet, God made atonement for her sin. Why?

Also, if a sin of ignorance is excusable, why did God require atonement for it in the OT?

And, what about this insight - "Could excuse for it [sin] be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin." (GC 492) How can God afford to excuse sin? Wouldn't it cease to be sin? Which would mean they aren't doing anything wrong, right?

MM: But who was more innocent of sinning ignorantly than Eve? She was deceived. Plus, she was unfamiliar with the character of God. She didn't know God well enough to see through Satan's deception. She was not armed and fortified with a saving knowledge of God's character. Who was more ill prepared to resist Satan's temptations than Eve? Whose sin was more excusable than hers? And, yet, God made atonement for her sin. Why?

Obviously there's something different about Eve's sin and keeping the Sabbath only until 6:00, don't you agree? Let me establish that we agree on this point first before commenting further, because if you disagree, then my comments won't really fit.

Also, if a sin of ignorance is excusable, why did God require atonement for it in the OT?

After becoming aware it is wrong, it is no longer excusable. The atonement process was a way to let the offending party know that the sin, which was done in ignorance, was forgiven. As EGW pointed out, where there is no light, there is no sin, and no frown of God. Once the error is known, then it must be rectified.

Here's a simple example, don't know how good it is. Let's say you are doing something in our dialogs that bothers me, but I don't mention it. You keep doing it. Eventually I mention it. You say, "sorry" and quit doing it.

During the time of my silence, you were sinning (so to speak) in ignorance. As soon as you became aware you were "sinning," in order to atone for what you did (keeping in mind that atonement is at-one-ment; that is to say, in order to keep our relationship good) you needed to acknowledge what you did and quit doing it. Before you were aware of what you were doing, then you didn't need to do anything.

I should have made myself the fall guy. Oh well, too much typing to undo.


And, what about this insight - "Could excuse for it [sin] be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin." (GC 492) How can God afford to excuse sin? Wouldn't it cease to be sin? Which would mean they aren't doing anything wrong, right?

I think a problem coming into play here is that the word "sin" is being used to mean different things, depending on the context. When EGW says that where there is no light, there is no sin, she is speaking of one thing. When she says "could excuse for it [sin] be found, or cause be shown for its existence" she is speaking of another.

Do you agree with this?

Anyway, to answer in a general way your question regarding why God cannot excuse sin, sin causes damage to the ones who sin, as well as to one's relationship with God (because of the sin; not because God quits loving the sinner). There is healing that must take place.

Nowhere do we see more clearly the effect of sin than with Adam and Eve. They knew they had done wrong. Their relationship with God was damaged, as well as their own. Their view of God had changed drastically. They became afraid of Him. There was major healing that needed to take place.

If God were to excuse their sin, the damage caused by sin would not have been dealt with. The healing would not have taken place. Sin would have resulted in death.

Something had to be done to set things right. So God gave His only begotten Son. He sacrificed from Himself in order to accomplish an at-one-ment.