Moral vs Venial Sin

[Scotchamoe]

In an article I read recently, it was stated, “Minor or venial sins can be confessed directly to God, but for grave or mortal, which crush the spiritual life out of the soul, God has insituted a different means for obtaining forgiveness - the sacrament known popularly as confession, penance or reconciliation.”

Who wrote the brief, I do not know, I received it from the Catholic Answers website and at the conclusion of the brief was this…
“NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004.”

Anyone want to discuss this?

I invite those who can, please show the Biblical doctrine for seprating sin into categories as moral or venial.

In Christ,
Scotchamoe

 

[sententia]

Well, here’s the main script, imo: 1 John 5:16:

“If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.”

 

[Scotchamoe]

Thanks for your reply, I was hoping I could discuss this with someone. You quoted the scripture…1 John 5:16

“If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.”

Can you explain, "if the sin is not deadly’? Is this the physical act of something being deadly? (i.e.- Murder) If that be the case then it would be in direct contradiction of and in itself. Why?
1 John 5:17 says…

“All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.”

The contradiction would come in because of Romans 6:23…

“For the wages of sin is death”

This is all inclusive. How could Paul say one thing and then another? This can’t be the case since the Word of God is not contradictory to itself.

So again, what determines what is venial or moral sin?

In Christ,
Scotchamoe

 

[mercygate]

Scotchamoe:

Thanks for your reply, I was hoping I could discuss this with someone. You quoted the scripture…1 John 5:16

Can you explain, "if the sin is not deadly’? Is this the physical act of something being deadly? (i.e.- Murder) If that be the case then it would be in direct contradiction of and in itself. Why?
1 John 5:17 says…

The contradiction would come in because of Romans 6:23…

This is all inclusive. How could Paul say one thing and then another? This can’t be the case since the Word of God is not contradictory to itself.

So again, what determines what is venial or moral sin?

In Christ,
Scotchamoe

Scotch – it’s morTal sin, not “moral.” The phrase in Greek is “pros thanaton” – “towards death,” meaning towards the death of the soul. (John is saying it, not Paul).

Scripture does not contradict itself but verse tennis does not work.

As for Rom 6:23, it is entirely reasonable to construe that as meaning mortal sin, since that would be, by definition, the sin of which the wage is death. Come to think of it, the kinds of sin Paul addresses in this epistle and elsewhere are, indeed, the kinds of sin we look upon as mortal. Read the rest of the epistle!

 

[mercygate]

Scotchamoe:

So again, what determines what is venial or moral sin?

In Catholic moral theology, there are 3 requisites for a sin to be mortal: 1) grave matter (breaking commandments); 2) knowledge that the matter is grave; 3) full consent of the will.

 

[banjo]

Scotchamoe:

So again, what determines what is venial or moral sin?

In Christ,
Scotchamoe

I think you mean “mortal” not “moral.” They differ in the gravity of the offense.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Mortal sin costs us the sanctifying grace in our soul. It is a true and deliberate rebelling or disowning of God similar to the parable of the prodigal son.

Venial sin does not deprive us of sanctifying grace, but does weaken us and makes us more susceptible to mortal sin. This is why one should not have the attitude of, “well, it’s just a venial sin, no big deal.”

 

[Scotchamoe]

Thanks for all the replies… I’ll try to address all that I can, if a question still arises regarding the post.

I did mean to type mortal, nor moral, so I appreciate all the heads-up on that one that I received.

Ok, here we go…mercygate wrote…

As for Rom 6:23, it is entirely reasonable to construe that as meaning mortal sin, since that would be, by definition, the sin of which the wage is death. Come to think of it, the kinds of sin Paul addresses in this epistle and elsewhere are, indeed, the kinds of sin we look upon as mortal.

I don’t understand how anyone can “construe” a meaning based on the simple text. Then we can construe the legitimacy of snake handling because, we can, by the text make it mean, what they perform in their worship service, as biblical. Understand what I mean?

Unfortunately for the arguement raised in your reply, it fails to identify, or address, how James 2:10 applies then…“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” This shows the relavence, and accuracy, of Romans 6:23 regarding all sin. It doesn’t devide sin into categories.

In Catholic moral theology, there are 3 requisites for a sin to be mortal: 1) grave matter (breaking commandments); 2) knowledge that the matter is grave; 3) full consent of the will.

Breaking Commandments, just the 10 or the 600+ in the OT and 100+ in the NT? The knowledge that the matter is grave? This’ll tie into your 3rd reason… If you don’t know or are unaware the seriousness of the sin, is it, therefore, not a grave matter? And also, according to the 3rd reason, you have to agree with yourself that it is grave sin and do it anyway… would that be full consent of the will?
Scott Wadell posted…

“Mortal sin costs us the sanctifying grace in our soul. It is a true and deliberate rebelling or disowning of God similar to the parable of the prodigal son.”

Then there is only 1 mortal sin according to this and the last definitions of what makes mortal sin, mortal sin… Blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:31…"“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.”

"Venial sin does not deprive us of sanctifying grace, but does weaken us and makes us more susceptible to mortal sin. This is why one should not have the attitude of, “well, it’s just a venial sin, no big deal.”

Then that’s all sin. For nothing takes away from the grace of God save God Himself since it is God that extends His grace not something that we earned to be able to keep.

So to understand you correctly… venial sin makes us more suseptible to mortal sin? I thought our sin nature made us susceptible to sin regardless of what it was.

Anyway, this should get things going.

In Christ,
Scotchamoe

P.S.- Please know that all my replies are not, nor will be, in anger or anxst. They are done in humbleness and with all due respect for any and all who reply or post here.

 

[banjo]

That some sins are more serious in the sight of God than others can be seen in Mt 11:22. “But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.”
And again in Jn 19:11; “Jesus answered him, 'You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”
St. Paul gives us more explicit examples of grave sin in Gal 5:19-21 and Col 3:5-8
The notion of varying degrees of gravity is seen clearly even in civil matters. In the case of someone stealing a newspaper from a stand and another stealing say $10,000. They are the same amount of stealing, but they are not stealing the same amount and cannot be considered equal.

 

[mercygate]

Scotchamoe:

Ok, here we go…mercygate wrote…

I don’t understand how anyone can “construe” a meaning based on the simple text. Then we can construe the legitimacy of snake handling because, we can, by the text make it mean, what they perform in their worship service, as biblical. Understand what I mean?

Boy. You lose me here. What I meant was that the verse about the wages of sin is tied to the rest of the epistle in which Paul mentions several, specific, truly hideous sins of the class we would identify as deadly to the soul, so that when he speaks of the wages of sin, those sins are what he is addressing.

Unfortunately for the arguement raised in your reply, it fails to identify, or address, how James 2:10 applies then…“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” This shows the relavence, and accuracy, of Romans 6:23 regarding all sin. It doesn’t devide sin into categories.

Read James 2:11. He specifically mentions adultery and murder. “Mortal” sins by anybody’s reckoning. Context, context, context.

Breaking Commandments, just the 10 or the 600+ in the OT and 100+ in the NT?

The “great” commandments; the 10 ‘words’ and the commandments to love God & neighbor; although, of course, we classify things like calumniation under “Thou shalt not kill.” We do not read the commandments crudely.

The knowledge that the matter is grave? This’ll tie into your 3rd reason… If you don’t know or are unaware the seriousness of the sin, is it, therefore, not a grave matter?

This is one of my pet points, and I am glad you bring it up. Objectively taken, the matter is still grave. But subjective culpability is mitigated. God does not hold us responsible for what we do not know to the same degree he holds responsible those who do know.

And also, according to the 3rd reason, you have to agree with yourself that it is grave sin and do it anyway… would that be full consent of the will?

Yup. Actually, though, you agree with God, rather than yourself, that it is grave matter and do it anyway.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Then there is only 1 mortal sin according to this and the last definitions of what makes mortal sin, mortal sin… Blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:31…"“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.”

No, because mortal sin can be forgiven, just as in the the parable of the prodigal son when the son repents and returns to his father. And the Father says this one who was dead is now alive. Mortal sin=death. Venial sin=deadening.

I thought our sin nature made us susceptible to sin regardless of what it was.

Yes, that is concupiscence, which God for some reason does not remove when he gives us the gift of grace.

 

[Scotchamoe]

Context, context, context

Hey mercygate, I’m so glad that was brought up.

I’ll post later today. I just wanted to say that.

In Christ,
Scotchamoe

 

[Subrosa]

Scotchamoe:

This is all inclusive. How could Paul say one thing and then another? This can’t be the case since the Word of God is not contradictory to itself.

Hi Scotchamoe -

Not to be a jerk, but the quotes from the 1st letter of John came from “John”, not Paul.

In other words, What color is Grant’s white horse?

Just a comment - read it all together and add it up. You get both deadly and not deadly sin.

Subrosa

 

[CollegeKid]

Scotchamoe:

Thanks for your reply, I was hoping I could discuss this with someone. You quoted the scripture…1 John 5:16

Can you explain, "if the sin is not deadly’? Is this the physical act of something being deadly? (i.e.- Murder) If that be the case then it would be in direct contradiction of and in itself. Why?
1 John 5:17 says…

The contradiction would come in because of Romans 6:23…

This is all inclusive. How could Paul say one thing and then another? This can’t be the case since the Word of God is not contradictory to itself.

So again, what determines what is venial or moral sin?

In Christ,
Scotchamoe

Even if in 1 John 5:16 the phrasing of sin “that is not deadly” referred only to sin involving physical acts that are deadly to oneself or others, that’s still a categorization of sin. That’s still a statement that basically means, “this is one type of sin that is the most evil, but there are other types of sin that are lesser evils.”

 

[CollegeKid]

I only point this out because it seems, if I’m not mistaken, that you believe the categorization of sins is a concept not found in the New Testament.

 

[Gnosis]

So if the “wages of sin is death” only applies to mortal sin, than that means that we need no salvation apart from our mortal sins.

Does the sin of Adam and Eve constitute a mortal sin? Eating a piece of fruit when God commanded them not to? It was a small act of disobedience, yet brought a curse on all humankind. Scripture is clear, death is the wages of ALL sin.

 

[mercygate]

Gnosis:

So if the “wages of sin is death” only applies to mortal sin, than that means that we need no salvation apart from our mortal sins.

Does the sin of Adam and Eve constitute a mortal sin? Eating a piece of fruit when God commanded them not to? It was a small act of disobedience, yet brought a curse on all humankind. Scripture is clear, death is the wages of ALL sin.

It sounds like you think God has a problem with logic because his mercy is greater than our sins.

Eating the fruit a “small act of disobedience”? By whose reckoning? In an uncomplicated world, it was the ONLY restriction placed on Adam and Eve. If God asks only one thing, can it be considered “small?”

As for “small,” most people today believe that masturbation is not even as much as “a piece of fruit,” yet the Church maintains that it is grave (mortal) matter. A sensitive reading of the Commandments leads one to recognize that much which passes almost unnoticed in any given culture can be grave matter when seen in the light of grace.

Scripture clearly supports a scale of gravity. Can it be read otherwise? Perhaps. But that is why God did not just give us a book and tell us to fight over what it means. He built his Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit “into all the truth” to discern such matters.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I would suggest that eating the fruit was not small because the intention behind it was the core of all sin–which is basically trying to be God. Death came into the world because of it, so yeah, it was mortal.

 

[Scotchamoe]

Hello All… I go away for a day and I missed alot.

1st of all to clear something up, a couple of folks have written (to paraphrase) John wrote that and not Paul… Paul did write Romans to which I was referring to (I guess I didn’t clarify very well) so I’ll accept that boo-boo and understand the correction from those that did.

2nd- I understand, thoroughly, when studying scripture there are 4 things that must be taken into consideration, in the scope and realm, of what’s being studied… 1- Era (and how that applies today); 2- Who spoken to; 3- Translation (not version) of original Greek and Hebrew and; 4- Context.

Ok, instead of me trying to address every post that’s in this thread, maybe I can clarify where I stand and the reasons.

Take a blank piece of paper - this represents God and His holiness (it’s a crude illustration, I know). Now take an ink pen/pencil/whatever… put 1 dot anywhere on the paper (this represents sin). The dot represents murder. Can it be in the presence of God? No. Why? It’s sin. Now… this dot represents theft of a pack of gum. Can it be in the presence of God? No. Why? It’s sin. So neither one can be attached to us and still be able to be in the presence of God.

Trust me, when I say, that murder is something that I can’t comprehend doing just to murder. Theft I can, I did it all the time as a youngster. But man’s justification of sin matters not to God. God stated sin as sin. Why? What is sin? Sin is, in a nutshell, going against the precepts, instruction, rules, regulations and will of God Almighty…agreed?

Now, if (what we’d classify as) the smallest sin can’t be in the presence of God, what difference is there between this sin and that sin? Because the Word of God says,
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” James 2:10
So is it now safe to say that if I violate 1 aspect of the law, even if considered venial, I’m guilty of the entire law, which includes mortal? If that’s so, then how can there be a separation?

I hope we can all agree that God made the Law like He did, because He is, Who He is and that’s all He needed. The Law is what it is and I agree with it.

1 other point and I’ll hush for now… Scott Waddell wrote…

I would suggest that eating the fruit was not small because the intention behind it was the core of all sin–which is basically trying to be God. Death came into the world because of it, so yeah, it was mortal.

I agree with the first statement, the core of all sin. The 2nd part…Death came into the world because of it… Why? Because it was the result of violation of the what God said right? So therefore it brought death. So if the wages (or result or reward) of sin (doesn’t say which sin, just says sin which would indicate all-inclusion…context) is death, then all sin is mortal.

Peace to all. In Christ,
Scotchamoe

 

[gryskull]

Scotchamoe:

Can you explain, "if the sin is not deadly’? Is this the physical act of something being deadly? (i.e.- Murder) If that be the case then it would be in direct contradiction of and in itself. Why?
1 John 5:17 says…

So again, what determines what is venial or moral sin?

In Christ,
Scotchamoe

No, it can’t mean murder although murder is a mortal sin(assuming all three categories are fullfilled). When St. James describes sin to be deadly he uses the word as an adjective and not as a verb. So the word deadly can’t be taken as something that is physical(ie murder). It was used in a way that describes the sin itself.

To answer your second question, verse 17 as you so kindly quoted say that there are sins that are deadly and there are sins that are not(im paraphrasing). St. James categorizes sin into 2, one not leading to death(venial) and one that leads to death(mortal).

Now, if (what we’d classify as) the smallest sin can’t be in the presence of God, what difference is there between this sin and that sin? Because the Word of God says,
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” James 2:10
So is it now safe to say that if I violate 1 aspect of the law, even if considered venial, I’m guilty of the entire law, which includes mortal? If that’s so, then how can there be a separation?

I think that it is safe to assume that you can distinguish the varying degrees of murder. Our courts even makes a distinction between murder(1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc) I also think that lying is not as bad as murder although both are sin. If you and our justices here on earth can make that distinction don’t you think that God can make that to?