Is There A Protestant Distinction Between Sins?

[Fidelis]

Someone posted this on another forum and I thought it was an interesting observation (I’ve edited it slightly for clarification):

"Fundamentalists and most Evangelical Protestants will say “A sin is a sin” since they don’t recognize a distinction between mortal and venial sins. But to many, smoking and drinking, for example, is a tell-tale sign that you aren’t saved.

Which raises an interesting question. Catholics recognize mortal vs. venial sins (based on 1 John 5:16-17). These Protestants deny a dichotomy, but they definitely categorize sins into two categories: sins that saved folks might still commit, and sins that, if committed, indicate that you were never saved in the first place.

The end result is the same, of course, and many sins (abortion, murder, etc) are regarded in similar ways by both communities. In essense then, I do think that many of these Protestants, despite what they may say, do recognize a dichotomy between venial and mortal sin."

Anybody want to tackle this one?

(Thanks Chris, wherever you are)

 

[ladylinguist]

In all the Protestant churches I’ve attended (and I’ve attended several varities in my four years as a Christian), sin is sin. Biblically speaking, there is no difference between big sins and little sins, as there is in Catholicism. We might occasionally try to justify our actions by saying “oh, well, at least I didn’t kill anyone”, but that’s merely human justification on our part. I’ve never heard it suggested that the committing of certain sins means you were never really saved. As far as I’m aware, the only sin that is considered unforgiveable is blashpeming (sp?) the Holy Spirit.
This has just been my experience, but I can’t speak for all the Protestant denominations.