"All Sins Are Equal"

[AbideWithMe]

Back in the day when I was an evangelical I would have quoted James 2:10: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.”

The underlying principle being that our sinful actions are just a symptom of a deeper problem–the sin nature. And the sin nature is the same in every person. Murder, lying, stealing, whatever–it all reveals the same basic heart problem–rebellion against God.

Or something like that. (It’s been a while since I’ve thought in these terms!)

Along with dronald’s posts, the middle paragraph here is a concise description of what Evangelicals typically have in mind if they talk about all sins being equal.

Being a lifelong Evangelical myself, I’ve never come across any Evangelical who means to be saying that in all ways a sin such as stealing office supplies from an employer (which is indeed a sin against charity and a failure of consideration, and as such is a symptom of our deeper tendency towards selfishness) is as serious a sin as the premeditated murder of a robbery victim. Both sins are symptoms of a deeper sickness that, to an Evangelical, remind us that we need a Savior to heal and re-create us, and that we are not called to be self-made men when it comes to Christ-likeness. To borrow a line from an old CCM song, “In the Light”, as an Evangelical, my sins of whatever sort “only serve to confirm my suspicions that I’m still a man in need of a Savior.”

Although I don’t think I’d use the phrase “all sins are equal”, in the teaching I’ve heard as an Evangelical and from self reflection, there’s an Evangelical emphasis on all sins being connected and closely related, so that in seeing someone else’s gross sins we shouldn’t feel superior for not having committed flagrant sins. But rather we should realize our own darker temptations, though better hidden and more respectable-looking, are kith and kin to the grosser sins: “There but for the grace of God go I.”

 

[fbl9]

All sin is equal in that it is an offense to God.
But not all sin separates one from God.

 

[MaryT777]

It’s the Revelation (singular!) of St. John, not “Revelations.” Sorry, pet peeve.

I think dronald explained it rather clearly; it’s more of a misrepresentation of their beliefs. I’ve never heard an Evangelical use “all sins are equal” as license to literally commit murder (and I mean “never” honestly, not in hyperbole).

This is typically drawn from Romans, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Sin is sin, and sin separates us from God.

The non Catholics I have heard use Romans as noted above. Also, regarding the comment on murder they will quote 1 John “whoever hates his brother is a murderer and you know that no murderer has etermal life remaining in them.”

Another quote for sins being equal is from Matthew. “You shall not commit adultery. Who looks at a woman lustfully has already commited adultery with her in his heart.”
Mary.

 

[Reuben_J]

Along with dronald’s posts, the middle paragraph here is a concise description of what Evangelicals typically have in mind if they talk about all sins being equal.

Being a lifelong Evangelical myself, I’ve never come across any Evangelical who means to be saying that in all ways a sin such as stealing office supplies from an employer (which is indeed a sin against charity and a failure of consideration, and as such is a symptom of our deeper tendency towards selfishness) is as serious a sin as the premeditated murder of a robbery victim. Both sins are symptoms of a deeper sickness that, to an Evangelical, remind us that we need a Savior to heal and re-create us, and that we are not called to be self-made men when it comes to Christ-likeness. To borrow a line from an old CCM song, “In the Light”, as an Evangelical, my sins of whatever sort “only serve to confirm my suspicions that I’m still a man in need of a Savior.”

Although I don’t think I’d use the phrase “all sins are equal”, in the teaching I’ve heard as an Evangelical and from self reflection, there’s an Evangelical emphasis on all sins being connected and closely related, so that in seeing someone else’s gross sins we shouldn’t feel superior for not having committed flagrant sins. But rather we should realize our own darker temptations, though better hidden and more respectable-looking, are kith and kin to the grosser sins: “There but for the grace of God go I.”

So when they say that all sins are equal, it means we all need a Savior, not that all sins are equal. Is that correct? I have the feeling from this post, that is does not address the question whether all sins are equal or not. What is said here, perhaps, that a sin is a sin, and therefore it needs to be forgiven.

The last paragraph seems to acknowledge the different levels of sins though, ‘the darker temptations’.

Putting aside 1 John 5:17 which mentions that some sins are not deadly, probably in human thinking it is not fair to say that all sins are equal. For a person who took back an office pencil to be given the same punishment as one who committed a premeditated murder is an inequitable justice.

 

[ltwin]

All sins are equal in that all sin is sin. Stealing office supplies is sin just as murder is a sin.

However, not all sin are equal in the accompanying guilt or the accompanying consequences. It is a question of difference in degree. Both are offenses against men and God, but murder is a much greater degree.

The remedy for both sins (stealing office supplies and murder) are the same: confession and true repentance before God. The murderer who confesses and repents is just as justified as the forgiven office thief.

 

[Reuben_J]

All sins are equal in that all sin is sin. Stealing office supplies is sin just as murder is a sin.

However, not all sin are equal in the accompanying guilt or the accompanying consequences. It is a question of difference in degree. Both are offenses against men and God, but murder is a much greater degree.

The remedy for both sins (stealing office supplies and murder) are the same: confession and true repentance before God. The murderer who confesses and repents is just as justified as the forgiven office thief.

huh? How does the second paragraph explain the first without saying that there is sin greater than the other? The third paragraph is obvious enough .

Thus bringing home a pencil from the office, perhaps an already used pencil that of little value, will get the same punishment as if one is committing a premeditated murder, if both sins are not confessed.

 

[Contarini]

It’s the Revelation (singular!) of St. John, not “Revelations.” Sorry, pet peeve.

I think dronald explained it rather clearly; it’s more of a misrepresentation of their beliefs

I don’t think it’s a misrepresentation.

. I’ve never heard an Evangelical use “all sins are equal” as license to literally commit murder (and I mean “never” honestly, not in hyperbole).

Of course not. That’s not the issue. (Although I have known some Baptists in the South use it to justify sexual misbehavior–after all, if all sins are equal, and all Christians sin and are forgiven by Jesus, then how is anyone to judge them for leaving their wife for another woman?)

Many evangelicals, in my experience, do literally believe that all sins are equal in God’s sight, and that differences in the gravity of sins pertain purely to the social effect of sins. I.e., obviously some sins hurt people worse than others, and society is more concerned to punish them than others, and a true Christian will work particularly hard to avoid those sins. They hedge it in all kinds of ways, precisely because they aren’t interested in condoning murder. They are interested in exalting the free grace of God. And to some extent the idea has simply taken on a life of its own. Most of my former students just repeated it as something that was self-evident–they didn’t really have any reason for believing it.

The origins of the idea, it seems to me, are in Luther’s theology. Luther suffered from what Catholics call “scrupulosity,” and he lived at a time when there were a lot of debates about the theology of penance and the relationship between free will and God’s grace, and when the Catholic theology of penance was often abused (most famously through the de facto “selling” of indulgences). Luther came to the conclusion that for salvation purposes all sins were equal. All sins, even involuntary movements of the inclination toward sin, deserved damnation. But for those who believed, all sins were covered by the blood of Jesus.

This didn’t mean that you just run around committing sins. Luther insisted from the beginning that a true believer will not want to sin, and will struggle against the “works of the flesh.” But you don’t have to worry about your failures in that struggle. Essentially, Luther decoupled ethics from soteriology. So for ethical and social purposes, of course some sins were worse than others (in his sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, Luther repeated the traditional view that lustful thoughts are not mortal sins unless you fully consent to them). But in terms of your saving relationship with God, all sins were damnable and all sins were (for believers) covered by the blood of Christ.

Biblically, the primary support for this idea is James 2: 10 (ironically enough).

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

. Luther came to the conclusion that for salvation purposes all sins were equal. All sins, even involuntary movements of the inclination toward sin, deserved damnation. But for those who believed, all sins were covered by the blood of Jesus.

Not quite - Luther never though that every sin immediately made you lose grace. “There are two kinds of Christian righteousness, just as man’s sin is of two kinds.”[1]

Luther recognized that there were differing damages to grace from differing sins, though he was rightly worried about was that by categorizing them "lulls the sinner to sleep about the seriousness of every sin. "[2]

Luther’s concern was as C. F. W. Walther comment : “Small sins become great when they are regarded as small” [3]

[1] Luther’s 1518 sermon entitled Two Kinds of Righteousness
[2] WELS - QA AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS-MORTAL VERSUS VENIAL SINS
[3] The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel

 

[steido01]

Not quite - Luther never though that every sin immediately made you lose grace. “There are two kinds of Christian righteousness, just as man’s sin is of two kinds.”[1]

Luther recognized that there were differing damages to grace from differing sins, though he was rightly worried about was that by categorizing them "lulls the sinner to sleep about the seriousness of every sin. "[2]

Luther’s concern was as C. F. W. Walther comment : “Small sins become great when they are regarded as small” [3]

[1] Luther’s 1518 sermon entitled Two Kinds of Righteousness
[2] WELS - QA AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS-MORTAL VERSUS VENIAL SINS
[3] The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel

 

[Contarini]

Not quite - Luther never though that every sin immediately made you lose grace.

I never said he did.

“There are two kinds of Christian righteousness, just as man’s sin is of two kinds.”[1]

Not sure how that sermon is relevant. The other two quotes are not from Luther.

Luther recognized that there were differing damages to grace from differing sins

I would like to see where Luther granted that sin, per se, could possibly “damage” grace. What caused a person to lose grace in Luther’s view was the choice to cease trusting in Christ. Luther says in the Galatians commentary that a person who does not struggle against the works of the flesh will eventually cease believing.

So I think it’s fair to say that Luther thought sins could damage faith–or rather, a carelessness about sin would either cause or go along with the act/process of ceasing to exercise genuine faith. But Luther seems pretty clear that no individual act of sin would break your relationship with God. I know that later Lutherans, like Johann Gerhard, maintained against the Reformed that David ceased to be a believer when he sinned with Bathsheba. But Luther himself explicitly says the opposite in the Galatians commentary.

Edwin

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Exactly, there is no denying what is written in John. We just don’t use the terms mortal or venial.

Well, John was just some Catholic guy. So yes, Catholics believe this.

 

[benjohnson]

I never said he did.

Perhaps I’m railing against the wrong part of our analysis. You claimed that Luther said that “all sins were equal.”

That’s not correct at all. Lutherans would tell you that some sins damage faith more or, more accurately, require a larger removal of faith to commit them.

Not sure how that sermon is relevant. The other two quotes are not from Luther.

Luther’s sermon and Lutheran quotes are germane to refute your claim that Luther said that “all sins were equal.”

Luther doesn’t think that and Lutherans don’t think that - we just don’t label sins by gradation so as to not fall into the trap of not worrying about committing ‘minor’ sins.

What caused a person to lose grace in Luther’s view was the choice to cease trusting in Christ. Luther says in the Galatians commentary that a person who does not struggle against the works of the flesh will eventually cease believing.

So I think it’s fair to say that Luther thought sins could damage faith–or rather, a carelessness about sin would either cause or go along with the act/process of ceasing to exercise genuine faith.

Pretty much agreed. As Bonhoeffer put it “Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.”"

But Luther seems pretty clear that no individual act of sin would break your relationship with God.

Mostly agreed. Even of suicides, Luther said “I don’t have the opinion that suicides are certainly to be damned. My reason is that they do not wish to kill themselves but are overcome by the power of the devil.”

Of course there is the sin of denying the Holy Spirit. Lutherans say that would be exceedingly hard to do though.

Where you’re may be going contrary to Lutheran theology is that we wouldn’t give assurances that “no sin will break your relationship with God.” as if we’re OSAS.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, John was just some Catholic guy. So yes, Catholics believe this.

 

[steido01]

Where you’re may be going contrary to Lutheran theology is that we wouldn’t give assurances that “no sin will break your relationship with God.” as if we’re OSAS.

Exactly. Genesis 3:4 comes to mind.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Actually, you’ve read it wrong; that site is saying much of what I have been saying.

All sin does send you to Hell and the forgiveness is from us placing our sin in Jesus Christ who nailed it to the cross and took it to the grave, resurrecting, leaving it there for eternity.

Jesus died to pay the penalty for sin (1 John 2:2). Jesus died for all of our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21). Are all sins equal to God? Yes and no. In severity? No. In penalty? Yes. In forgivability? Yes.

Ah, then it seems we have a real disagreement after all.

From the Catholic point of view, it’s all about being in a state of grace - a state of friendship with God. Because of original sin, we are not born in that state, and we are incapable of reaching it ourselves, and in fact have an in built tendency to commit sin.

By baptism, God places us in a state of Grace. At this point, if we die, we go to heaven. We can reject God’s grace though - through the deadly sin referenced in John, the sin that kills our relationship with God and condemns us to eternal death. If we do, then we are no longer in a state of grace and must be restored to such by God or we go to Hell. But not all sin is deadly - not all sin will destroy this relationship.

If all sin condemns us to Hell, but all sin is likewise automatically forgiven (either for everyone, or only for the baptized, or the “saved” or whatever), then in fact no sin condemns us to Hell and there is no such thing as deadly sin - in contradiction of John. If all sin condemns us to Hell, and the sin is not forgiven without our acceptance of the forgiveness God freely offers, then all sin is deadly - in contradiction of John.

Pretty much the only way to maintain that there is deadly sin and not deadly sin is for salvation to be able to be discarded, and for there to be sins that don’t do this.

And yes, this can lull people into complacency (my sins aren’t that bad, I’m basically a good person), whereby they can ignore the venial, non-deadly sins until they find themselves desensitized and committing deadly sin. But the dangers inherit in following half a truth (that some sin will not damn you) while ignoring the other half (that all sin is by definition evil and dangerous) makes the full truth no less true.

 

[Reuben_J]

Luther doesn’t think that and Lutherans don’t think that - we just don’t label sins by gradation so as to **not fall into the trap of not worrying about committing ‘minor’ sins. **

I wish that there are other reasons for not ‘grading’ sins except this. No Christian worth his salt would not worry about committing sins, major or minor, that’s a given.

 

[steido01]

I wish that there are other reasons for not ‘grading’ sins except this. No Christian worth his salt would not worry about committing sins, major or minor, that’s a given.

Have you seen some of the [well-intentioned] advice given to the scrupulosity folks?
“Don’t worry, you’re not damned.”
“That’s not really a sin.”
“Just a little white lie.”
“What Mama don’t know…”

It is for good reason that many Christians avoid ‘grading’ sins. If we become so legalistic about our wrongdoings, we start thinking that we must compensate for them penny-for-penny – or worse, that we are capable of atoning for them ourselves. It’s really about having the right paradigm. When the emphasis is correctly placed on the Gospel that forgives all sins, we are able to use the Law as a guide to avoid sin, not just punish us for it.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If all sin condemns us to Hell, but all sin is likewise automatically forgiven (either for everyone, or only for the baptized, or the “saved” or whatever), then in fact no sin condemns us to Hell and there is no such thing as deadly sin - in contradiction of John. If all sin condemns us to Hell, and the sin is not forgiven without our acceptance of the forgiveness God freely offers, then all sin is deadly - in contradiction of John.

This was a GREAT post!
It neatly summarizes not only Catholic soteriology, but also why scripture DEMANDS that there be a purgation for non-deadly sins.

 

[dronald]

Ah, then it seems we have a real disagreement after all.

From the Catholic point of view, it’s all about being in a state of grace - a state of friendship with God. Because of original sin, we are not born in that state, and we are incapable of reaching it ourselves, and in fact have an in built tendency to commit sin.

Of course we’re in disagreement, you’re a Catholic and I’m an Evangelical; haha. But the thread was destined to go this way, so here we go!

By baptism, God places us in a state of Grace. At this point, if we die, we go to heaven. We can reject God’s grace though - through the deadly sin referenced in John, the sin that kills our relationship with God and condemns us to eternal death. If we do, then we are no longer in a state of grace and must be restored to such by God or we go to Hell. But not all sin is deadly - not all sin will destroy this relationship.

That’s all well and good but there is no definition on whether a lack of baptism saves us within the CC (unborn babies, that theif on the cross, wanting to be baptized [very vague]) and what sins exactly constitute a mortal sin.

Essentially, because I don’t believe in mortal sin the way you do, the chances are that I can not commit a mortal sin based on the criteria of mortal sins. Let’s say you commit adultery knowing that it is a mortal sin and willingly doing it regardless of it being a mortal sin, you have committed a mortal sin; however, if I commit adultery having no idea that it is a mortal sin then there’s a likelihood that I have not committed a mortal sin.

So now on God’s sin-o-meter God looks at you and says, “Sorry but you’ve committed a mortal sin and can’t come in” and likely sends me to purgatory for a while because of my ignorance.

If all sin condemns us to Hell, but all sin is likewise automatically forgiven (either for everyone, or only for the baptized, or the “saved” or whatever), then in fact no sin condemns us to Hell and there is no such thing as deadly sin - in contradiction of John. If all sin condemns us to Hell, and the sin is not forgiven without our acceptance of the forgiveness God freely offers, then all sin is deadly - in contradiction of John.

That’s only true if you have never asked a Protestant what constitutes a sin leading to death. (What you would call a mortal sin)

A sin leading to death would be the rejection of the Son of God. To say that everyone will be saved is un-biblical, we know that many will be damned. We also can both agree that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ. However, most Evangelicals believe that the only way to Hell is not having Jesus Christ. We believe that if you have Jesus your works will prove it, therefore if you have Jesus you’re not going to go on a murderous rampage but you may tell a white lie because it’s easier to fall into temptation of things like masturbation and lying than it is to kill a human being in cold blood.

Now, if we have Faith, we’ll stop doing the things we ought not to (like masturbation) and the less Faith we have the less of a chance we’ll stop. It takes a ton of Faith not to ever lie or commit petty sins, but that’s how Faith and works work hand in hand. There honestly is no sin scale and the only unforgivable sin is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Pretty much the only way to maintain that there is deadly sin and not deadly sin is for salvation to be able to be discarded, and for there to be sins that don’t do this.

And yes, this can lull people into complacency (my sins aren’t that bad, I’m basically a good person), whereby they can ignore the venial, non-deadly sins until they find themselves desensitized and committing deadly sin. But the dangers inherit in following half a truth (that some sin will not damn you) while ignoring the other half (that all sin is by definition evil and dangerous) makes the full truth no less true.

It comes down to whether you believe that “all sins” means the future as well. I may end up saying this a million times but there is no sin scale.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

That’s all well and good but there is no definition on whether a lack of baptism saves us within the CC (unborn babies, that theif on the cross, wanting to be baptized [very vague]) and what sins exactly constitute a mortal sin.

Things are not quiet as vague as you imply. Of course, knowledge of how things apply to a specific person can only be known by God, but the vagueness is primarily because we do not know what God knows about us, and not because we do not know what God would do with the knowledge. Which is why only God can judge people, but we can in fact make moral statements.

Unbaptized infants are an interesting case because they are in what we might call natural innocence. This is a true case where we do not know what God will do because He has not told us - but we do know that unbaptized infants have not been put in a state of grace by normal means, and so that none of God’s promises explicitly guarantee their salvation. Thus we know that we should baptize them, though we also know that God can choose to save them anyway, if He so chooses (and many of us strongly suspect that He will).

But for mortal sin, things are much more clear. There are occasionally times when it is hard to tell at what point an action goes from being grave matter to not grave matter, but all this means is that (excepting the scrupulous, who should do pretty much whatever their confessor tells them) we should be hard on ourselves, and treat doubtful cases as though they were serious.

Essentially, because I don’t believe in mortal sin the way you do, the chances are that I can not commit a mortal sin based on the criteria of mortal sins. Let’s say you commit adultery knowing that it is a mortal sin and willingly doing it regardless of it being a mortal sin, you have committed a mortal sin; however, if I commit adultery having no idea that it is a mortal sin then there’s a likelihood that I have not committed a mortal sin.

Actually, this is not quiet correct. To be a mortal sin, the action must be gravely evil, and you must know that it is gravely evil and will to do it anyway, but you need not know that it will, if unrepented, result in damnation. So a protestant (not necessarily you) may think that his salvation cannot be lost, and willingly commit adultery knowing that it is gravely evil, and then get hit by a bus and go to Hell even though he thinks this is impossible.

So now on God’s sin-o-meter God looks at you and says, “Sorry but you’ve committed a mortal sin and can’t come in” and likely sends me to purgatory for a while because of my ignorance.

It is worth mentioning that not all ignorance is innocent, so even if the culpability for the sin is reduced, chances are that if I am ignorant of something obvious along the lines of “adultery is evil,” that may very well be because of my intentional negligence. Which could also be mortal sin. Ignorance of obvious sins may not be enough because of this (though of course it might be - only God can see inside our hearts and minds to tell though).

(cont)