Mortal and venial sin debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter junostarlighter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

junostarlighter

Guest
I wrote a message to a Protestant pastor on whether all sin is equal in the eyes of God or if there are varying degrees (mortal and venial). He wrote the following back to me:
Interesting. It obviously is not completely biblical, because the Bible never uses the terms “venial” or “mortal.” So the distinction is certainly not a biblical distinction.

That said, the Bible does make some commentary about the nature of sin.

Romans 14:23 says, “But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” Additionally, James 4:17 states the opposite: “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.”

John, in his first epistle, adds an interesting twist to the entire matter (1 John 5:16-17): If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death."

So, there is a sin that leads to death, and there is a sin that does not lead to death. However, the Bible never lists which specific sins are lead-to-death sins and which ones are not-to-death sins.

Jesus makes a profound observation: “I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” (Mark 3:28-29)

So, some sin is forgivable, and at least this one sin is unforgivable. But again, the exact delineation of what exactly is entailed in forgivable sin and unforgivable sin (blasphemy - just a transliterated Greek word - against the Holy Spirit) is not provided.

Let’s use a metaphor to make a point, however. Human beings are mortal. Period. So if you die from cancer or from a car accident or from old age or from a lightning strike, you are still, in the end, dead. If you have dirt on your face or a clean face, it does not matter, really. Clean dead or dirty dead - dead is still dead.

So, there might be an argument for a “venial sin,” that does not lead to death. Dirty face, if you have venial sin, clean face if you don’t. But the “mortal sin” if there is such a definable thing, means you’re spiritually dead.

Paul’s book to the Romans is the most clear book about this issue. Paul wrote, "What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:21-23) The entire chapter is much more illustrative of the issue, and really chapters 1-8 frame the entire concept.

Hebrews 10 gets to the point. So does Ezekiel 18 and 33. Psalm 51. Galatians 5. Tons of other huge sections. The whole book of Deuteronomy. And so on.

So, I’ll agree with Patty [Patty is my gf who also holds that all sin is equal], that in the long run, sin that leads to death is the human condition, and all sin is the same, with the end result in view. And I’ll agree with you, that there is a distinction between fudging your age to be a big shot does not equal Jeffery Dahmer or Adolph Hitler or Idi Amin, etc. But so what?

If you’re dead with dirt on your face or dead with a clean face, you’re still dead. What you need is life through resurrection and transformation, rather than a wash rag.

Do you agree?
Any insights?
 
Re-read his answer. In one sentence he says that the bible “never uses the terms ‘venial’ or ‘mortal.’ So the distinction is certainly not a biblical distinction” and in the next sentence he shows that it does “John, in his first epistle, adds an interesting twist to the entire matter (1 John 5:16-17): If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death (venial), he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death (venial). There is a sin that leads to death (mortal). I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death (venial).”

He then comes to the wrong conclusion that all sin is equal because we all die. Yet, the passage clearly says that not all sin is equal because the passage is talking about spiritual death and spiritual life. Mortal sin kills us spiritual and we are lost to the fires of hell unless we reconcile with God. Venial sin does not lead to this spiritual death.
 
Re-read his answer. In one sentence he says that the bible “never uses the terms ‘venial’ or ‘mortal.’ So the distinction is certainly not a biblical distinction” and in the next sentence he shows that it does "John, in his first epistle, adds an interesting twist to the entire matter (1 John 5:16-17): If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death (venial), he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death (venial). There is a sin that leads to death (mortal). I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death (venial)."

He then comes to the wrong conclusion that all sin is equal because we all die. Yet, the passage clearly says that not all sin is equal because the passage is talking about spiritual death and spiritual life. Mortal sin kills us spiritual and we are lost to the fires of hell unless we reconcile with God. Venial sin does not lead to this spiritual death.
I was actually confused about that. He’s got a little bit of the anti-Catholic in him. He probably say the words ‘mortal’ and ‘venial’ and decided to use the “those words aren’t in the bible” trick. Don’t some translations for that passage use the word ‘mortal’ though?

Is there anything else in his response I can address?
 
However, the Bible never lists which specific sins are lead-to-death sins and which ones are not-to-death sins.
Sure it does. What does he think these are?
Paul's first letter to the Corinthians:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Paul's letter to the Galatians:
Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the life. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Sounds to me like the Bible is pretty darn vocal about mortal sins.

Jeremy
 
However, the Bible never lists which specific sins are lead-to-death sins and which ones are not-to-death sins.
Sounds to me like he’s a once-saved-always-saved preacher. Otherwise he’d recognize the fact that Christians, born again to new life through baptism, can so sin as to die spiritually.

Jeremy
 
the protestant pastor:
Interesting. It obviously is not completely biblical, because the Bible never uses the terms “venial” or “mortal.” So the distinction is certainly not a biblical distinction.
I just read that and thought to myself, well the the term “Trinity” was never used in the bible. Therefore it’s obviously NOT completely biblical. Right :confused:
 
While I disagree with the comments your pastor made, I think its great that he took the time to respond!! It certainly took awhile, and its great to see. God BLess
 
I was actually confused about that. He’s got a little bit of the anti-Catholic in him. He probably say the words ‘mortal’ and ‘venial’ and decided to use the “those words aren’t in the bible” trick. Don’t some translations for that passage use the word ‘mortal’ though?

Is there anything else in his response I can address?
My Ignatius RSV uses the word “mortal” in 1 John 5.
 
Mortal…the definition of the word is deadly.

Venial is from Latin venia…the definition is forgiveness
 
It seems to me the debate between you two isn’t about the types of sin as much as it is the effect of sin on our souls after death.

You seem to agree there is a distinction made in the bible between sin which is unforgivable and not.

But the gf who says all sin is the same, and he who says, so the face is dirty but the dirt can be wiped off - are relying on Jesus to cleanse them after death but before they enter into His kingdom.

We Catholics, however, have the magesterium and and we have been taught to obey that magesterium…and that if we do not, knowing full well what the teachings are and their consequences, then we commit mortal sin which, I suppose to the protestant would be along the lines of the blasphemy against the spirit. (Which in reality, kinda is since to commit a mortal sin in Catholicism is, indeed, rejecting the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the magesterium).

Anyway…it seems this is one of the pleasant teachings of protestantism…all sin is the same, belief in Jesus upon your death guarantees He will wipe the dirt off our souls - because we proclaim Him to be our personal savior. We don’t need priests to do it for us along the way, all that matters is that Jesus is there to grant His mercy on our souls when we call upon Him to do so.

They aren’t too far off the mark because even Catholicism (through scripture) teaches that each person will be judged by the measure of what was given to them and what they did with that.

Since protestants don’t know about the 3 conditions of mortal sin, then they can’t knowingly commit a mortal sin. And whether a person kills another or fudges on a test, if that person calls upon the mercy of Christ in the end, that person can be saved.

I personally, wouldn’t want to take that chance, but if their faith is strong enough to truly believe in God’s mercy then do you really see Jesus denying them entrance into the kingdom after they’ve appealed to Him as their savior? According to scripture we have no reason to believe He would deny them especially since they didn’t know the Truth. I do see a really long time in purgatory for those souls, but that’s a whole separate conversation with protestants, isn’t it?

We Catholics have the narrower path. No wonder so many choose seemingly greener pastures.
 
Frankly, we see 1 John 5:16-17 the sin unto death being physical death. Acts 5 being an example. You need to define venial and mortal sins objectively.
So what kind of Sins are Mortal?
Code:
In order for a sin to be mortal, it must **meet three conditions**:
Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter **
Mortal sin is committed with
full knowledge** of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner
What is venial sin?
As stated before, venial sin is a sin of lesser matter than grave sin. It can also be a sin of grave matter in which the sinner **did not fully consent **to the sin or did not have knowledge that his actions where sinful. Venial sins will not destroy grace in the soul, and will not directly cause a person who dies in the state of venial sin to lose the promise of heaven. Yet, venial sin weakens a person’s will to avoid evil and thus may indirectly lead to mortal sin. Regardless, all sin is an offense against God and should be avoided.
saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

Scripture demonstrates both parts of that above definition, sins unintentionally, and sin through ignorance. The scriptures your writer quoted meets all three conditions of mortal sin.

sins unintentionally Use NIV

Leviticus 4:2
Leviticus 4:13
Leviticus 4:22
Leviticus 4:27
Leviticus 5:15
Numbers 15:22
Numbers 15:24
Numbers 15:27
Numbers 15:28
Numbers 15:29
Ezekiel 45:20

sins in ignorance Use King James Bible

Hebrews 9:7
Leviticus 4:2
Leviticus 4:13
Leviticus 4:22
Leviticus 4:27
Leviticus 5:15
Numbers 15:24
Numbers 15:25
Numbers 15:27
Numbers 15:28
Numbers 15:29

Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

I am not catholic.
 
Hosea 4:6
my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.

Acts 17:30
And the **times of this ignorance **God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Ezekiel 45:20 (New International Version)
You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance; so you are to make atonement for the temple.

Acts 3:17
"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.

1 Timothy 1:13
Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.

Hebrews 9:7
But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.

1 Peter 1:14
As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.

Ephesians 4:18
Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the** ignorance **that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

1 Peter 1:14
As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts** in your ignorance**:

Read each text in my posts for context to determine which works best for your argument.
 
Nice job, Daniel 👍

It really does seem that there is a line to be crossed once a person knows God’s commandments. Before then they are in ignorance. After that, they are responsible to a greater extent.

So the gf and the gentleman who are relying on God’s mercy in the end to overlook their willful disobedience seem to be off the mark.

Using their example…when they get to the gate with dirt on their face, they should expect Jesus to ask how it got there. I think of the little kid who comes in with mud on their shoes. The Mom asks, what happened…he comes back with one of two responses…“I don’t know” or “I jumped in the puddles on my way home”. Interestingly enough, the first time it happens moms and dads always reprimand the little one, telling him not to jump in the puddles anymore. So the kid does it again, comes into the house, and when mom asks, this time he says, “I don’t know” even though he knows he jumped in the puddle again. He says “I don’t know” because he already know if he tells the truth mom will be disappointed with him.

I suspect Jesus will ask if we intentionally jumped in the puddles or tried to avoid them. I am certain He’ll know the answer regardless of how we respond. That alone is incentive for me to avoid as many puddles as possible in my lifetime. And, no, we can’t say we didn’t see the puddle, or recognize the puddle, or we just wanted to dip our toes into it but then we slipped all the way in…
 
I like the puddle story, do you think Jesus will buy the excuse that I was trying to walk on water to follow your example?

or do you think that would give Jesus a good belly laugh before he says, “ah NO”
 
I like the puddle story, do you think Jesus will buy the excuse that I was trying to walk on water to follow your example?

or do you think that would give Jesus a good belly laugh before he says, “ah NO”
That’s a good one :rotfl:

I do think he’d enjoy the laugh!
 
Yin–

I think the way you describe it is exactly right. And it sounds just like what the Catechism says on it but just in a kind of story form.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top