Are there any negative effects on people who consider themselves sinners?

[meltzerboy]

There are, of course, several differences between Christianity and Judaism. One interesting difference I’ve observed is that Christians think of themselves as sinners at the same time as recognizing themselves as made in the image and likeness of G-d. I believe I understand why this is so from a theological perspective. My question, however, is are there any potential negative effects on the psyche of thinking of and, in a way, defining oneself as a sinner as opposed to saying, as one does in Judaism, that one has sinned and asking forgiveness, while refraining from labeling oneself a sinner?

 

[JMJ_coder]

The definition of a sinner is one who has sinned. There are no negative effects from using proper definitions or in affirming reality (we have all sinned in one way or another).

Now, to turn the question around…are there any negative effects from refusing to recognize oneself as a sinner? Perhaps pride, arrogance, self-righteousness, etc.?

 

[MarcoPolo]

The potential negative effect of recognizing oneself as a sinner is, like many things, if you take it too far –– that turns into another sin: scrupulosity.

Of course, we believe recognizing oneself as a sinner is merely recognizing truth, which of course is proper.

 

[DaveBj]

There is a strain in Protestant Evangelicalism that decries the maintenance of “sin consciousness” in Christians who are not active “sinners.” They say things like, “If you’re a sinner, get born again and quit sinning. If you’re a born-again child of God, and you’re not practicing sin, then quit referring to yourself as a sinner.”

I believe that there is a difference in definitions here, with the Catholic definition being “a sinner is anyone who has ever sinned, at any time, however slightly,” and the Evangelical definition being “a sinner is anyone who is currently practicing sin.” This question makes me wonder if someone who habitually thinks of him/herself as a sinner might actually be more prone to fall into sin than someone who habitually thinks of him/herself as a saint.

I have to do more studying on this; I’m not knowledgeable enough to hold a firm opinion on this issue. However, I think that, like with many issues, the truth might lie somewhere between the two extremes.

 

[GangGreen]

No one never sins. Even the Saints sinned. Also, the odds of someone taking one point in time and never ever committing a sin again for the rest of their lives is pretty much zero. Everyone sins whether it’s a venial or mortal sin, everyone does it. Some just do it more often and more gravely than others.

 

[RPRPsych]

There are, of course, several differences between Christianity and Judaism. One interesting difference I’ve observed is that Christians think of themselves as sinners at the same time as recognizing themselves as made in the image and likeness of G-d. I believe I understand why this is so from a theological perspective. My question, however, is are there any potential negative effects on the psyche of thinking of and, in a way, defining oneself as a sinner as opposed to saying, as one does in Judaism, that one has sinned and asking forgiveness, while refraining from labeling oneself a sinner?

I’d say “No in general, but perhaps yes in specific cases, depending on circumstances”.

Most cultures, even those that are largely secular, recognize that humans have a potential for both good and evil. This has been explained in various ways - biological (we act on evolution-derives urges such as predation and sexual drive), supernatural (the world is divided between good and evil beings / gods), or environmental (the way we are brought up determines whether we turn out good or evil.)

The Christian answer to this age-old question is that we are made in the image of God (and are therefore “good”) but that we also inherit the consequences of the Fall, namely original sin and a tendency towards further sin later in life (and are therefore “sinful”). We do not necessarily define ourselves exclusively as “sinners” first and last. (There are some strains of Reformed thought, particularly Calvinism, that insist on “total depravity”, however, Calvinism was constructed by a lawyer, and is certainly rejected by the majority of the world’s Christians), but we recognize our sinful nature and try to keep it in check, by seeking and cooperating with grace of God.

Now, this could theoretically lead to problems (scrupulosity, depression, etc.) in certain vulnerable people, but by and large, I think having a sense of our own limitations (and in the end, sin is a reminder of human imperfection and limitation) is a healthy rather than an unhealthy thing. Moreover, when we are tempted to pass judgment on X for sin Y, realizing that we could easily have done Y (or the similar Z) ourselves can also help us avoid self-righteousness.

 

[meltzerboy]

The definition of a sinner is one who has sinned. There are no negative effects from using proper definitions or in affirming reality (we have all sinned in one way or another).

Now, to turn the question around…are there any negative effects from refusing to recognize oneself as a sinner? Perhaps pride, arrogance, self-righteousness, etc.?

Good point. However, I am attempting to differentiate between using a label to define oneself, even though one may not be limiting oneself to this single definition, instead of describing an aspect of one’s behavior. To offer a comparison, if one defines oneself as a homosexual (article plus noun), this is different, both linguistically and psychologically, than saying one is homosexual (no article) or one has homosexual attractions or engages in homosexual behavior. In the latter examples, one is not labeling oneself or defining one’s identity in purely sexual terms.

 

[meltzerboy]

No one never sins. Even the Saints sinned. Also, the odds of someone taking one point in time and never ever committing a sin again for the rest of their lives is pretty much zero. Everyone sins whether it’s a venial or mortal sin, everyone does it. Some just do it more often and more gravely than others.

This is true; however, notice what you just stated: everyone sins. You have referred to this in terms of people’s BEHAVIOR of sinning rather than saying everyone is a sinner. I have a feeling there may be a difference in the way people think about themselves when they explicitly identity themselves as sinners instead of admitting they have engaged in the behavior of committing sins.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’d say “No in general, but perhaps yes in specific cases, depending on circumstances”.

Most cultures, even those that are largely secular, recognize that humans have a potential for both good and evil. This has been explained in various ways - biological (we act on evolution-derives urges such as predation and sexual drive), supernatural (the world is divided between good and evil beings / gods), or environmental (the way we are brought up determines whether we turn out good or evil.)

The Christian answer to this age-old question is that we are made in the image of God (and are therefore “good”) but that we also inherit the consequences of the Fall, namely original sin and a tendency towards further sin later in life (and are therefore “sinful”). We do not necessarily define ourselves exclusively as “sinners” first and last. (There are some strains of Reformed thought, particularly Calvinism, that insist on “total depravity”, however, Calvinism was constructed by a lawyer, and is certainly rejected by the majority of the world’s Christians), but we recognize our sinful nature and try to keep it in check, by seeking and cooperating with grace of God.

Now, this could theoretically lead to problems (scrupulosity, depression, etc.) in certain vulnerable people, but by and large, I think having a sense of our own limitations (and in the end, sin is a reminder of human imperfection and limitation) is a healthy rather than an unhealthy thing. Moreover, when we are tempted to pass judgment on X for sin Y, realizing that we could easily have done Y (or the similar Z) ourselves can also help us avoid self-righteousness.

I agree especially with your last statement. IOW, thinking of oneself as a sinner may lead us to greater empathy with others and less self-righteousness and judgmental indignation. OTOH, it does seem that the Calvinist notion of “total depravity” carries the concept of being a sinner a little too far.

 

[meltzerboy]

The potential negative effect of recognizing oneself as a sinner is, like many things, if you take it too far –– that turns into another sin: scrupulosity.

Of course, we believe recognizing oneself as a sinner is merely recognizing truth, which of course is proper.

I agree that scrupulosity is a major concern.

 

[meltzerboy]

There is a strain in Protestant Evangelicalism that decries the maintenance of “sin consciousness” in Christians who are not active “sinners.” They say things like, “If you’re a sinner, get born again and quit sinning. If you’re a born-again child of God, and you’re not practicing sin, then quit referring to yourself as a sinner.”

I believe that there is a difference in definitions here, with the Catholic definition being “a sinner is anyone who has ever sinned, at any time, however slightly,” and the Evangelical definition being “a sinner is anyone who is currently practicing sin.” This question makes me wonder if someone who habitually thinks of him/herself as a sinner might actually be more prone to fall into sin than someone who habitually thinks of him/herself as a saint.

I have to do more studying on this; I’m not knowledgeable enough to hold a firm opinion on this issue. However, I think that, like with many issues, the truth might lie somewhere between the two extremes.

Interesting point concerning thinking of oneself primarily as a sinner may actually LEAD to being more sinful: a kind of negative identification, in psychological parlance. Also interesting information with regard to the strain of Protestant Evangelicanism you refer to.

 

[meltzerboy]

Good question and one I’ve wondered about.
I had a therapist friend who had a patient whom, she felt, could not improve because he was stuck in a mindset that he had to constantly “punish” himself for being a sinner and that it was what God ordered and wanted.

Like any way of thinking, I’d say one can take the concept of “sinning” overboard.
If one perceives being a “sinner” as a very human quality shared by all…as one who merely makes choices sometimes that hurts oneself or others once in a while…and that it is good for yourself and for those around you to try and improve the choices you make, big and small…that sounds healthy.

But I imagine that if one thought themself as being born a sinner and in a constant state of sinning and that God “hates” sinners and will send them to hell for it…and if one thinks they always deserve punishment and that they can never be good enough or perfect enough…I can’t see how that would not have a very negative effect on one’s psyche and self-esteem.
I imagine of one takes the thought of sinning that far, it would be debilitating.

.

It seems to me that the use of language such as calling oneself “a sinner” may lead to a mental representation of oneself as intrinsically unworthy rather than being an imperfect human being who, like other human beings, makes sinful choices but is capable of being forgiven. Now this mental representation may in fact be in accord with Christian beliefs including salvation based on grace rather than works alone, as well as original sin; but I still wonder whether there is not also a kind of internal conflict created.

 

[RPRPsych]

There is a strain in Protestant Evangelicalism that decries the maintenance of “sin consciousness” in Christians who are not active “sinners.” They say things like, “If you’re a sinner, get born again and quit sinning. If you’re a born-again child of God, and you’re not practicing sin, then quit referring to yourself as a sinner.”

I believe that there is a difference in definitions here, with the Catholic definition being “a sinner is anyone who has ever sinned, at any time, however slightly,” and the Evangelical definition being “a sinner is anyone who is currently practicing sin.” This question makes me wonder if someone who habitually thinks of him/herself as a sinner might actually be more prone to fall into sin than someone who habitually thinks of him/herself as a saint.

A very interesting point, and one which ultimately derives from Calvinism again - particularly the concepts of “limited atonement”, “irresistible grace” and “perseverance of the saints” (the LIP of the TULIP, if I may make a lame pun. )

The sense of being “predestined” and one of the “chosen few” can make you grateful to God, but it can also make you look down on those who aren’t “chosen” (= non-Reformed); I’ve had to deal with a bit of this attitude myself, and have even been lectured by a student (!) for being “unregenerate” simply because I had the temerity to approve of Pope Francis. Domine, miserere nobis.

The concept of “irresistible grace” implies that once you are “regenerated”, you can’t help it; you are the passive recipient of a supernatural experience that has nothing to do with your will (hence why Reformed theology is called “monergism”, while Catholics are more at the “synergism” end of the spectrum). This can again cause one to look down on those who have not had this “experience”.

The third sticky point, “perseverance of the saints” (i.e., once you’ve had this experience, you cannot fall away), with a little distortion, becomes the concept of “once saved, always saved”, which in layman’s terms is sometimes taken to mean “no sin, however ‘heinous’, can make you lose your salvation” - and again, this can lead to a bit of hubris and a tendency to rationalize or dismiss one’s own failings.

I’m not saying all Evangelicals have these failings (I know Evangelicals who lead far better lives than I) or that Catholics have a more highly developed sense of sin, but I’m just using these points to illustrate how theology can inform (or deform) the development of a right attitude towards our own sinful nature.

 

[CaptBell800]

It seems to me that the use of language such as calling oneself “a sinner” may lead to a mental representation of oneself as intrinsically unworthy rather than being an imperfect human being who, like other human beings, makes sinful choices but is capable of being forgiven. Now this mental representation may in fact be in accord with Christian beliefs including salvation based on grace rather than works alone, as well as original sin; but I still wonder whether there is not also a kind of internal conflict created.

There is internal conflict created, but it is for a useful purpose. It drives one to constantly better themselves and try to achieve a more perfect alignment with the will of God. It would seem that individuals who think they are already unworthy simply because they are sinners have an incomplete understanding of their religion.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Good point. However, I am attempting to differentiate between using a label to define oneself, even though one may not be limiting oneself to this single definition, instead of describing an aspect of one’s behavior.

Assuming that one does not fall into the extreme of scrupulosity, no I don’t see any potential negative effects. In fact, I think it puts one in the proper and humble perspective of our relationship with God. He is our Savior and Redeemer and we are sinners in dire need of salvation and redemption.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

[DaveBj]

A very interesting point, and one which ultimately derives from Calvinism again - particularly the concepts of “limited atonement”, “irresistible grace” and “perseverance of the saints” (the LIP of the TULIP, if I may make a lame pun. )

snip

Actually, the strain of Protestant Evangelicalism that I was referring to comes more from the Arminian-Pentecostal side of the fence. The one preacher of whom I am thinking was asked once, “What do you think about once-saved-always-saved?” His response was, “I don’t think about it at all. I’m not looking for a way out.”

With regard to the times when a Christian does sin, he teaches that one should act on I John 1:8-9 – “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” According to him, when we catch ourselves in a sin, instead of going into “failure/hopeless sinner” mode, what we should do is to immediately confess it (call it what it is) to God, repent of it (so as not to repeat it), receive our forgiveness, and move on. Dwelling on how we sin, in his theological world, creates a sense of “sin conciousness” which cripples the Christian and renders him unable to act within the Kingdom of God.

 

[RPRPsych]

Actually, the strain of Protestant Evangelicalism that I was referring to comes more from the Arminian-Pentecostal side of the fence. The one preacher of whom I am thinking was asked once, “What do you think about once-saved-always-saved?” His response was, “I don’t think about it at all. I’m not looking for a way out.”

With regard to the times when a Christian does sin, he teaches that one should act on I John 1:8-9 – “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” According to him, when we catch ourselves in a sin, instead of going into “failure/hopeless sinner” mode, what we should do is to immediately confess it (call it what it is) to God, repent of it (so as not to repeat it), receive our forgiveness, and move on. Dwelling on how we sin, in his theological world, creates a sense of “sin conciousness” which cripples the Christian and renders him unable to act within the Kingdom of God.

Interesting, and quite the opposite of what I’d had in mind!

I’d respectfully disagree with him about “sin consciousness” necessarily being a bad thing. While there is such a thing as dwelling unhealthily on it (OCD / scrupulosity), being aware of one’s failings and how they occur is also a good way to avert them in future.

 

[fbl9]

Actually, the strain of Protestant Evangelicalism that I was referring to comes more from the Arminian-Pentecostal side of the fence. The one preacher of whom I am thinking was asked once, “What do you think about once-saved-always-saved?” His response was, “I don’t think about it at all. I’m not looking for a way out.”

With regard to the times when a Christian does sin, he teaches that one should act on I John 1:8-9 – “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” According to him, when we catch ourselves in a sin,** instead of going into “failure/hopeless sinner” mode,** what we should do is to immediately confess it (call it what it is) to God, repent of it (so as not to repeat it), receive our forgiveness, and move on. Dwelling on how we sin, in his theological world, creates a sense of “sin conciousness” which cripples the Christian and renders him unable to act within the Kingdom of God.

Interesting, and quite the opposite of what I’d had in mind!

I’d respectfully disagree with him about “sin consciousness” necessarily being a bad thing. While there is such a thing as dwelling unhealthily on it (OCD / scrupulosity), being aware of one’s failings and how they occur is also a good way to avert them in future.

Those that fall into the failure mode, need not to try to “study” how they fell. The review it’s self could be enough of an occasion to sin… guilty.

 

[DaveBj]

Interesting, and quite the opposite of what I’d had in mind!

I’d respectfully disagree with him about “sin consciousness” necessarily being a bad thing. While there is such a thing as dwelling unhealthily on it (OCD / scrupulosity), being aware of one’s failings and how they occur is also a good way to avert them in future.

I agree with you. Where I agree with the unnamed preacher is in the uselessness of dwelling on and beating oneself over the head with past failures.

 

[RPRPsych]

I agree with you. Where I agree with the unnamed preacher is in the uselessness of dwelling on and beating oneself over the head with past failures.

Can’t disagree with you at all there.