6. Sixthly, when sinning against knowledge, a person condemns
through their knowledge, the matter is presented as sin, and they align themselves with it under that notion and understanding.
6. Sixthly, when sinning against knowledge, a person condemns themselves. However, when sinning out of ignorance alone, only the law condemns them. Therefore, as stated in Romans 2:1, when a person has knowledge in a matter they judge others for, they condemn themselves. Similarly, in Romans 14, just as selfmurder is the highest degree of murder and an aggravation of it, self-condemnation must also be regarded. God considered it a significant advantage over the servant who hid his talent, declaring, "Out of your own mouth, I will condemn you, you wicked servant."
Having established the doctrine, I will now proceed to explain what it means to sin against knowledge.
Firstly, I will clarify this:
(1.) It is one thing to sin with knowledge and another to sin against knowledge.
Many sins are committed by a person with their knowledge, but they are not sins against knowledge. This distinction is important to address any concerns that may arise among the godly, who might otherwise be troubled by this doctrine due to a misunderstanding.
A regenerate person is, and must be, presumed to be guilty of more known sins than an unregenerate person. However, they commit fewer sins against knowledge than the unregenerate.
[1.] Firstly, I say that they are guilty of more known sins. They are aware of every sinful inclination that stirs within them, every improper motive, every opposition to holiness, every negligence of duty, and every reluctance towards spiritual duties. When a person is regenerated, they begin to see and know more of their own evil than ever before. They recognize, as the apostle describes himself in Romans 7:8, "all manner of concupiscence." The holier a person becomes, the more they discern and understand their sins. The apostle confesses in Romans 7:18, "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." And in verse 21, he declares, "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." And in verse 23, he acknowledges, "I see another law in my members." He perceives and experiences all these things daily within himself, and the more he grows in holiness, the more he becomes aware of them.
As a person is illuminated by the light of God's Spirit, they see their lusts rising and stirring in their hearts like specks in the sunlight or sparks from a furnace, which they would not have seen otherwise.
The clearer the beam of sunlight that enters the heart, the more they will perceive them.
[2.] However, I add, in the second place, that they sin less against knowledge. For true sins against knowledge occur when a person considers the fulfillment of a lust, the performance of an action, or the neglect of a duty, among other things, and deliberates upon them. They weigh the motives against the sin or in favor of the duty.
Yet, despite this knowledge and opposition presented by knowledge, they still commit the sin, yield to it, nurture the lust, or neglect the duty. In such cases, they not only sin with knowledge but also sin against knowledge because knowledge interposes, interrupts, and opposes them. However, in the aforementioned shortcomings in duty and stirrings of lust in the regenerate, the situation is different.
These sins are indeed committed with knowledge but not against it.
It is beyond the power of knowledge to prevent them because motus primi non cadunt sub libertatem (the first movements do not fall under the domain of liberty). Although such sins may arise repeatedly, a good heart does not allow them to pass unnoticed and uncontrolled. Therefore, let not troubled souls misunderstand me, thinking that I am referring to all sins known to be sins throughout this discourse. I specifically refer to sins committed against knowledge, that is, when knowledge examines a sin before or during its commission, brings it under the scrutiny of the law, argues against it, condemns it, and yet the person approves and consents to it. When a duty and a sin are presented before knowledge, akin to Barabbas and Christ before Pilate, and knowledge repeatedly tells you that such a sin is grave and ought to be crucified, yet you cry out,
"Let it go!" Similarly, when knowledge repeatedly tells you that a duty should be embraced, yet you neglect it and commit the sin, choosing Barabbas over Christ, these are sins against knowledge.
Such sins against knowledge disrupt a person's peace, and the more premeditation there was, the more the peace is shattered.
(2.) The second distinction is that people sin against knowledge either directly or collaterally, objectively or circumstantially.
[1.] Firstly, directly sinning against knowledge itself occurs when knowledge becomes the object that individuals abuse or fight against.
Knowledge becomes the target, the endpoint, the mark they aim at, and this is to sin directly against knowledge itself.
[2.] Secondly, collateral sinning occurs when knowledge is merely a circumstance in our sins. In this case, the pleasure of a known sin is the desired objective, and knowledge stands in the way, yet the sin is committed despite knowing it. Here, knowledge is indeed sinned against but collaterally, as a bystander or mere circumstance that is
incidentally affected. It is like someone stepping in to intervene in a fight and getting hit. The quarrelsome Sodomites and Lot are both mentioned in this chapter and are therefore fitting examples for this discussion.
The collateral kind of sinning against knowledge is mentioned in verse 21, where it says, "They knew God, yet they glorified him not."
Here, knowledge is regarded as a mere circumstance in their sinning; they sinned against it collaterally. But in verse 28, the other kind of sinning directly against knowledge is mentioned: "They liked not to retain God in their knowledge." This means they not only loved the sins they knew to be sins, but they also did not love the knowledge itself. Since both types are clearly exemplified, we will discuss both in more detail.
Now, there are many sins directly against knowledge itself. I will categorize the main types into two branches:
Firstly, regarding ourselves.
Secondly, regarding others.
(1.) Firstly, in regard to ourselves, there are five ways in which we can sin against knowledge itself.
[1.] Firstly, when we abuse knowledge to aid us in sinning. For example, plotting and contriving a sin, as Judas plotted to betray his
Master when it was convenient for him. The text in Mark 14:11 states that he would do it wisely. Similarly, those who sought to trap Christ with cunning questions sinned, as did those who plotted against the righteous in Psalm 37:12.
[2.] Secondly, when people use their wisdom to tell crafty lies to cover up a sin. Plato said that people with knowledge are more powerful and wiser in lying, whereas fools, although they may intend to lie, often unintentionally speak the truth.
[3.] Moreover, when individuals abuse moral knowledge, which, as Aristotle says, is least prone to be (and should be) abused. They make a show of good pretences to conceal and dissemble their sins, not only by finding clever artifices to cover them up, as David did in the matter of Uriah, saying, "The chances of war fall to all alike," but also when they shamelessly employ religious pretexts, as the devil sometimes does. Saul, for instance, pretends to have done the will of the Lord when Samuel confronts him, but when Samuel mentions the cattle, Saul claims they are for sacrifice, even though God had explicitly commanded their slaughter. This deceptive maneuver cost
Saul his kingdom, and Samuel pronounced him a rebel. Rebellion is a sin against knowledge, and Saul knew it. Jezebel also tried to justify the stoning of Naboth with a solemn fast. Judas, too, fished for money using a charitable pretense, saying, "This could have been sold and given to the poor." In sins against knowledge, the mind often seeks a pretext, and this provokes God more than the sin itself because it amounts to mocking Him. Just as people cannot tolerate deceit, much less can the all-knowing God be mocked. Convincing such individuals is challenging. David needed to be confronted harshly before confessing when he had a deceitful plan. People employ such deceits primarily in the case of sinning against conscience, for otherwise there would be no need, and they would surely plead ignorance, as Abimelech did.*
Secondly, when people neglect the acquisition and pursuit of knowledge, which could prevent and hinder them from sinning and make them proficient in their duties. This is tantamount to sinning
against knowledge, even though the sins are committed out of ignorance. However, since that ignorance is a result of their own negligence, it is all the same. It is similar to what the apostle says about the Hebrews in Hebrews 5:12, that given the time they had to learn, they should have become teachers, yet they still needed to be taught the basics again. If a person had an apprentice who, due to negligence and lack of attention to observing and learning from daily experiences in their trade, could have acquired significant knowledge in their trade, which would have saved their master much trouble, but instead, they have caused the master losses and spoiled the work, such careless and ignorant behavior would rightly be corrected by the master, and all the waste and loss would be charged to the apprentice because they could have done better if they had known how. Even those who thought ignorance itself was not a sin (in which they erred) believed that neglecting knowledge was a grave sin. They believed it would not excuse sins but rather aggravate them.
Therefore, we see that these Gentiles will be held accountable not only for the actual knowledge they attained and sinned against, but also for the knowledge they could have obtained from observing the creation. The apostle introduces this concept in verse 20, where he mentions that God's power is clearly seen in the created world, and yet these individuals neglected to understand and learn from it. God will reckon this neglect as additional knowledge they could have acquired and will use it to amplify their sins.
Thirdly, and even worse, is when people refuse knowledge so that they can sin more freely, stopping their ears to avoid being persuaded. For example, they may be reluctant or afraid to read a book that would expose or could expose the truth to them, submission to which would be detrimental to their desires. This is done with the intention of pleading ignorance of their sin. Similarly, those who do not assent to the truth when it confronts them strongly
but seek to evade it. In 1 Corinthians 14:37, when the apostle had clearly revealed the truth in the disputed matters, such that anyone who was spiritual or not entirely blind could see and acknowledge the truth, he concluded his discourse by stating, "If any is ignorant, let him be ignorant." This means that their ignorance is willful and intentional. It is like what is said elsewhere in Revelation 22:11, "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still." It means that those who choose to be unjust and refuse to turn away will continue down that path.
This is a great sin, as God gives up on such individuals. God will make efforts to teach and bear with someone who is merely negligent or lacks understanding, as Christ did with His disciples. However, if a person is willfully ignorant, God will leave them in their ignorance, and yet He will hold them accountable as if all their sins were committed against knowledge because they refused to know.
[4.] The fourth way is hating the light and seeking to extinguish it. It is even worse when people hate the Word and its ministers, the examples set by God's people, and the light they carry with them, shining as lights in a crooked generation (Philippians 2:15). Yet, they hate these sources of light, just as thieves hate a torch in the night, and they recoil from the light like bats. This is what the Jews did, as mentioned in John 3:20. Christ declares that this is the greatest condemning sin of all. Similarly, the Gentiles put Socrates to death for reproving them. Furthermore, individuals sin when they strive to extinguish the light in their own consciences and "like not to retain
God in their knowledge" (verse 28). They pursue the art of forgetfulness, blowing out the candle and drawing the curtains, so they can freely and securely continue in sin. Moreover, those who have had a clear conviction that they should be strict in their conduct and sanctify the Lord's day and engage in private prayer, but have lost that light and believe they no longer need to be so strict, sin against their knowledge and are the worst of sinners. Aristotle
himself considered this state a malignant one, wherein the sparks of light are extinguished or hated. When someone's light is lost and darkness takes its place due to sinning, as Christ says, "How great is that darkness!" When good laws are not only not enacted and embraced but also repealed (as Aristotle uses the analogy to distinguish between an incontinent person and a wicked person), it is a high form of sinning. Thus, of these Gentiles, it is said, "Their foolish heart was darkened"; they had extinguished some of the light given to them. Just as some drink away their wits, some sin away their consciences, gradually eroding the remaining spark of natural light. Furthermore, in verse 10, it is mentioned that they corrupt themselves in what they know naturally.
[5.] Fifthly, people sin against knowledge in an even worse manner when they hold opinions that contradict their knowledge. Many are said to do so. In 1 Timothy 4:2, it is foretold that they would "speak lies in hypocrisy" and invent lies that have a pretense of holiness, which they know to be false. Otherwise, they would not be said to "speak lies in hypocrisy." They do it to preserve their honor and greatness, which would be undermined if their doctrine were proven false. Although many are given over to believe their lies (2
Thessalonians 2:11) as a punishment for not loving the truth, there are others who know that they are lies and yet present them as truths. These are individuals who tailor their opinions to fit the times, to please those in power, or to maintain a certain image. They stubbornly cling to an error they have introduced, even if removing that one tile would cause the entire house to collapse. These are the two causes identified for distorting the truth in 1 Timothy 6:4-5: pride and covetousness. They assume that gain is godliness and shape their religion accordingly. They become "hired guns" who write or speak anything that will bring them profit and advancement.
(2.) Secondly, people sin against knowledge in regard to others.
[1.] First, by concealing it. The apostle does indeed say in a particular case, "Do you have knowledge? Keep it to yourself." This refers to opinions or practices concerning indifferent matters that could scandalize the weak. However, if you have knowledge that can edify your brother, you ought to share it. Socrates, who knew that there was only one God, said in his defense of his life that if they offered him life on the condition that he kept that truth to himself and did not teach it to others, he would not accept life under such conditions.
I recall that he expressed his resolution in words very similar to the words used by the apostles in Acts 4:20: "Whether it is better to obey
God than men, you be the judge." And Christ says, "We cannot but teach the things we have heard and seen." Knowledge is something that boils within a person, seeking an outlet, and cannot be contained. It is light, and light is meant to be displayed and provide illumination. Christ argues from an apparent absurdity, questioning why someone would hide a light under a bushel when it can illuminate the entire house. If you have knowledge of God and His ways, you cannot help but speak about it (assuming you also have a good heart), sharing it with your family, your spouse, and so on. God assumed that Abraham would teach his children what he knew, and the same disposition is found in all the children of Abraham.
[2.] Secondly, when people strive to suppress knowledge. Like the Pharisees, who kept the keys of knowledge in their hands and refused to open its treasures themselves or allow others to do so. In Acts 4:16, they admitted that a great miracle had been done by the apostles but declared, "That it spread no further, let us threaten them, and charge them, that they speak no more in his name." They acted against their consciences, as they themselves acknowledged,
"We cannot deny it." It was evident that it was the truth, and if they
could deny it, they would. Similarly, when masters prevent their servants from accessing sources of knowledge, they are guilty of this sin.
[3.] Thirdly, when we try to make others sin against their consciences. The Pharisees cast out the blind man when he would not say what they wanted him to say. They wanted him to declare that Christ was a sinner, even though, based on the little light he had, he judged it evident that a sinner could not perform such a miraculous deed as had never been done before. Jezebel made the judges and witnesses sin against their consciences when accusing
Naboth. Similarly, some Gentiles who wanted to maintain a relationship with the Jews tried to compel the Galatians to be circumcised (Galatians 6:12). Although they knew that circumcision was to be abolished, they used coercive arguments based on avoiding persecution rather than evidence of the truth or convincing reasons.
Therefore, it is said that they "constrained them." The persuaders may have gloried in strengthening their cause and position, but they gained little credibility for their cause. Just as their arguments appealed to fleshly desires, the yielding of the Galatians was driven by the flesh as well. Therefore, Paul says, "They glory in your flesh" and weakness. It is like when the papists urged Cranmer to recant, using threats and promises rather than arguments. This is the greatest cruelty in the world: causing someone to murder themselves and stab their conscience. Offending a weak conscience is a sin, even if done passively, by doing something in front of them that their conscience is against. But it is much worse to make someone wound their own conscience and perform an act that their conscience opposes. For example, if you are a master and have a servant who, due to conscience, refuses to lie for your benefit in your shop or who will not engage in unlawful business on the Sabbath day, and you strike and whip them, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall."