"All Sins Are Equal"

[Iron_Donkey]

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.

It is true that the only way to Hell is the rejection of Christ, but this rejection does not have to be an explicit statement “I deny Christ.” Many will say “Lord, Lord” and still be damned. This means that it is possible to think that one has Christ and yet be rejecting Him. To oppose Him by sinning while saying that we’re following Him in our minds.

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.

I think “having Jesus” is similar to the Catholic idea of “state of grace”. And it is true that being in a relationship with Christ fortifies us, and helps us to resist temptation - but it is absolutely false that it makes us immune, or makes any of the deadly sins John references less deadly.

So yes - “having Jesus” will help us resist sin, but it is not a direct consequence that the sin will stop. There are many priests and preachers who commit adultery/fornication. Does this mean that they never sincerely believed, never sincerely desired to follow Christ with all their heart? No, of course not. Does it mean that they will go to Hell? Assuming a reasonable level of knowledge and will, then yes it does - unless they repent before death. Is the sin unforgivable? Absolutely not, but the forgiveness must be accepted.

The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but this blasphemy is exactly refusing God’s efforts to restore us to a state of grace, the rejection of forgiveness offered. The decision not to accept forgiveness offered is the only thing that cannot be forgiven as long as it is persisted in.

But your answer actually dodges the point a bit here. If there is deadly sin, and if, as John says, I can tell whether or not someone else is engaging in activity that (presuming knowledge and willingness) would be such sin, there must be sin that can be committed by a person who is in a state of grace (or has Jesus) that can result in their damnation, and it must be something that I can see.

Since I can’t see in their heart to tell if they are blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, such sins must be things that are visible - along the lines of murder, adultery, masturbation.

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.

There definitely is a sin scale though. A person in a state of grace who tells a white lie will not go to Hell if he gets hit by a bus 30 seconds later. A person who knowing that it is evil willingly commits adultery and then gets hit by a bus before repenting (and barring extraordinary action on the part of God) will go to Hell.

That is the scale. It might be hard for us to tell where exactly a sin is on the scale, but that does not mean the scale doesn’t exist. It may be that there are sins of equal gravity, or sins that are so bad that while one is worse than the other, that comparison becomes moot because both lead to damnation.

For the past/future thing, hard to say. What I say is that any mortal sin will cause any person to go to Hell, unless they repent and and are restored to a state of grace before they die. Future sins may destroy the state of grace again, but that does not affect the state of grace now.

 

[Contarini]

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.

The dichotomy is a false one in the first place. Punishment isn’t something extrinsically imposed. The “punishment” of sin is simply its effect on your soul.

Catholics try to avoid all sins, venial as well as mortal. But venial sins are not wholly avoidable. Mortal sins are. When you suggest that the distinction is all about punishment, you show a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching.

Christians of all stripes tend to slide into thinking primarily in terms of avoiding punishment. In Catholics (and some Protestants who think more like Catholics on this point) this produces legalism. In Protestants, it produces presumption and the pernicious view that the sins of believers just don’t really matter, while none of the good things done by “unbelievers” matter, which amounts to being saved by belonging to an in-group.

Of the two evils, I’ll take legalism.

Edwin

 

[PJM]

=NovusAugustus;11276226]While among more traditional reformed communities this belief is less common, mega-churchers, evangelicals, and baptists (who are very common in my area) love to repeat the line, “The Bible says all sins are equal before God.” When I ask for a scriptural reference, they tend to be pretty vague. Does anyone here, reformed or not, know why they hold this belief and their justification for it? I’ve always taken it as self-evident that murder is more severe than lying, but I want to see the arguments against this so I don’t get out-argued in the future.

HERE DEAR FRIEND IS THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE THAT DISPROVES SUCH A POSITION:

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:** "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

** 1John.5 Verses 16 to 17**"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. ** There is sin which is mortal**; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, ** but there is sin which is not mortal. **

** John.20 Verses 20 to 23**]" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. ** Jesus said to them ** again, “Peace be with you. ** As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ** And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. **If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained/B

God Bless you, and THANKS for asking

NOT shouting; emphasis only**

 

[Contarini]

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

Soteriologically speaking.

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.

We need to be clear: I’m talking about Luther, not necessarily confessional Lutheranism. Luther became increasingly concerned during his own life with guarding against antinomian misinterpretations of his ideas, but this process seems to have gone much farther in later Lutheranism. LCMS folks seem particularly prone to a more “moralistic” interpretation of Lutheranism–many in the ELCA would take a different approach. For instance, one of the finest Lutheran scholars I know, Timothy Wengert, argues that the conservative view on homosexuality violates Lutheran Law/Gospel teaching. I have no business saying whether he’s right or wrong, but I can see how “liberals” on that issue derive their ideas from a particular strand of Luther’s teaching. Similarly with this issue. The “all sins are equal” position clearly derives from Luther’s teaching, even though the way it works in the theology of modern evangelicals is very different from how it works for Luther. I do not assume that confessional Lutherans necessarily get Luther more “right” on this than other strands of Protestantism do. At the same time, I recognize that confessionally my outsider’s perspective on what Luther historically taught is irrelevant. (Well, I’m not wholly an outsider, inasmuch as my religious heritage has certainly been shaped by Luther. But I’m wholly an outsider to confessional Lutheranism and am not trying to suggest that you have “departed from Luther,” or that if you have it’s necessarily a bad thing)

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

I don’t see what in the sermon refutes anything I said. And I’m not talking about what later Lutherans think, but what Luther thought.

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.

Or the trap Luther was most concerned with, which was falling into despair because of the inescapability of sin and the tormenting voice of conscience.

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.”

And that’s a good example of Luther using something like the mortal/venial distinction in practice. strengthening your case.

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.

It doesn’t imply OSAS, only that it isn’t sin per se that breaks the relationship.

Again, I’m not trying to describe a confessional Lutheran position. I’m trying to describe as accurately as possible what I find in Luther’s own writings, recognizing that Luther stands at the headwaters of more traditions than just Lutheranism, and that his very complex and paradoxical writings can be taken in many different directions!

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

Timothy Wengert, argues that the conservative view on homosexuality violates Lutheran Law/Gospel teaching.

Without going into the weeds, my complaint is that Wengert’s theology seems to diminish the Law in a noble attempt to be inclusive. A more confessional Lutheran theology would be to increase the Gospel - and it works. It may perhaps surprise you that there are several people with strong homosexual tendencies in my very ‘conservative’ LCMS church - we’re a hospital for sinners.

Or the trap Luther was most concerned with, which was falling into despair because of the inescapability of sin and the tormenting voice of conscience.

Agreed! Luther seems to have had his foot in this trap several times - this is still a common theme in our rather complex theology that we like to pretend isn’t complex.

I’m trying to describe as accurately as possible what I find in Luther’s own writings,

You are perhaps glutton for punishment - there’s 52 volumes already in English and with a recent translation of six more, and four more to come!

Whatever you do, don’t go down the Kirkegaard rabbit hole

Peace to you Edwin!

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

I understand that and what you’re trying to say. I was just thinking we are bigger than ‘so as to not fall into the trap of not worrying about committing ‘minor’ sins’. What are we reduced to if we are not to worry about sin, big or small? Are we not taught to avoid sins?

Grading of sin into venial and mortal is so that we can see its consequence to our souls and to the society, perhaps. The deadly sins would disallow us to receive Holy Communion and if unconfessed would lead us to eternal damnation, at least theoretically, judgment being the sole’s prerogative of God. Thus for us to see the necessity to repent immediately should we err by committing a mortal sin because of the consequence it can befall on us.

In all my life as a Catholic, I have never heard any Catholic who would think that a venial sin “is not really a sin”. Never did I hear anyone claim it as such. In fact when people commit such sins they seem to be very apologetic, remorseful and ashamed that they should fall into such temptation. Probably the maxim that when you need to justify your action against your conscience, it can never be right and it is definitely a sin.

That of course without being said that the path to holiness is to avoid sins altogether.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben:

I was just thinking that surely we are bigger than ‘so as to not fall into the trap of not worrying about committing ‘minor’ sins’.

But if that should happen then perhaps we should look into the quality of our Sunday school teachers. And I am not just talking about the Lutherans. Probably the Catechism has not been well taught or being taught erroneously.

It is true that there may be Christians who think a sin is not a sin, especially a minor one since it is perceived as being very ‘harmless’. This is an instance of being honestly ignorant but not that I heard of Christians as not worrying about committing minor sins, in fact to the contrary they do worry if they should fall into that habit or if they commit minor sins.

If we visit the Liturgy and Sacrament section of the CAF we would see many threads asking whether what they did were sins or not. And most of those who posed the questions were actually not sins. So people are worried if they thought that they have sinned or even unwittingly committed one.