Protestants: Scripture and Mortal Sin

[Atreyu]

The purpose of this thread is to show that Protestantism is deficient since it has no concept of mortal or venial sin. If your particular Protestant faith tradition does have this concept, then this thread does not apply to you. However, it is my understanding that most Protestants do not have this concept purely for the fact that it contradicts their understanding of Justification. I believe that if I am successful in showing that the Bible clearly teaches the concept of mortal and venial sin, then a reasonable conclusion is that the traditional Protestant understanding of Justification is also wrong.

To restate a little (although it is an aside to the topic of this thread), I think the only reason Protestants don’t have a concept of mortal and venial sin is because of their traditional teaching on Justification. In other words, Protestants come to the Bible with a pre-conceived notion of Justification and then try to fit the clear teaching of the Bible into this understanding (instead of the other way around, which is what most Protestants claim). However, the concept of mortal and venial sin is clearly taught in the Bible (as I will attempt to show below), and so Protestants must embrace this concept and reject their prior understanding of Justification, since it is not supported by the Bible.

The particular passage I will refer to is, of course, the fifth chapter of the first letter of John. Here is the relevant passage (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.
I have never seen a Protestant adequately explain how this fits in with their theology on Justification. Instead, the Protestant apologetics that I have seen simply claims that this passage doesn’t fit with the Catholic understanding of mortal and venial sin, and then they think that their job is done and they move on. To wit, Joe Mizzi, who quotes Protestant author H. M. Carson:

“It will not do to appeal to the apostle John who speaks of ‘a sin unto death’ for this would prove too much. A mortal sin for Rome is one which can be forgiven, and for which therefore pardon should be sought. But the sin of which John speaks is one of such a serious character that he cannot even ask his hearers to pray for one who is guilty of it. It would seem therefore that he is referring to such a sin as apostasy, or final and persistent impenitence - the sin against the Holy Spirit for which the Lord says there is no forgiveness - and this is, in fact, recognized in the note in the Douay Version” (Carson H.M, Roman Catholicism Today, IVF, 1964, p. 93).

I will later explain how this clearly does fit in with Catholic theology on mortal and venial sin. But for now, I want to ask some questions for all Protestants reading this thread:
If you see your brother or neighbour sin, will you pray for him? Are there particular sins for which you will not pray? And, most importantly, if there does indeed exist sin which “leads unto death”, then how does this fit in with your theology that Justification (or salvation or whatever you call it) once gained cannot be lost?
This passage clearly demonstrates that the notion of “once saved always saved” is not Biblical. If the brothers committing the sins are not already Justified, then these sins can hardly lead to death can they? Since they are already dead. But if the brothers committing the sins are Justified, then this passage demonstrates that they can lose that Justification.

Now I will explain how this passage fits in with Catholic theology. To do so, let’s assume that the passage is indeed talking about the Catholic concept of mortal sin; that the “sin that leads to death” is equivalent to the Catholic “mortal sin”, and the “sin that does not lead to death” is the Catholic “venial sin”.

Now if a Catholic prays for his brother who has committed a venial sin, then this merits (I think that is the right word) a partial indulgence for the sinner. In other words, praying for the brother who has committed a venial sin has a very real benefit, and so I say you should pray for this brother.

However, if a Catholic prays for his brother who has committed a mortal sin, then what happens? Absolutely nothing. There is no point in praying for your brother who has committed a mortal sin, and so I say you should not do it. Better to pray for your brothers that have committed venial sins.

On the other hand, I have no idea which sins of my brothers are mortal and which are venial, so I would probably pray for them all regardless. But even if I do this, I know that my prayer for my brothers who have committed mortal sins will do absolutely nothing.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You have adequately and succinctly shown that 1st John 5:16-17 can be used by a Catholic apologist to support their claims of mortal and venial sin. But…you already knew that.
Where you clearly overstate your case is that Protestant theologians have not adequately offered plausible interpretations that support traditional Protestant views on justification.
How would we want to proceed? If I were to offer some of those, would you be persuaded? No.
Would you deem them adequate? I don’t think so.

May I offer one of hundreds of interpretations of this verse one can find in any commentary or online answer forum:

"The prayer of this passage is intercessory prayer in which the praying brother seeks forgiveness for a sin that he sees another commit. However, if this sin is one of such proportion that scripture has taught us to turn the person over to Satan, then a prayer for that sin should not be made. Now, let us look at some applications.

1John dealt with those who denied that Jesus is the Christ (1John 2:22-23; 4:2, 15; 5:1). Very likely, this is one of the sins unto death that John has in mind. In 2John 1:9, John declared, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” Why should we ask God to forgive someone for the sin of denying the person of Jesus Christ?

However, 1John 5:16-17 does not deny us the right or responsibility of praying for the sinner. What is in question is prayer for the sin. In fact, we should pray that the consequences of sin should lead the sinner to God. But we should not pray that God should forgive them of their sins on behalf of the praying brother’s prayer.

There may still be cases where it is difficult to draw the line. However, the principle is clear. We are encouraged to pray for the forgiveness of the sins of fellow believers when we see them do something that is in disobedience to God. In fact, God promises to answer these prayers in their behalf.

However, when the sins we observe are sins of high immorality or doctrinal infidelity, the rule changes. We may pray for the sinner, but we should not seek to intercede between the sinner and God for the sin. Their only hope to get right with God may be to face the full consequences for their disobedience in this life."

 

[Atreyu]

You have adequately and succinctly shown that 1st John 5:16-17 can be used by a Catholic apologist to support their claims of mortal and venial sin. But…you already knew that.
Where you clearly overstate your case is that Protestant theologians have not adequately offered plausible interpretations that support traditional Protestant views on justification.
How would we want to proceed? If I were to offer some of those, would you be persuaded? No.
Would you deem them adequate? I don’t think so.

I have not seen them adequately explain this passage. And so at the moment my issue is not whether or not I’ll be persuaded by their interpretations, but whether or not those interpretations even exist!

May I offer one of hundreds of interpretations of this verse one can find in any commentary or online answer forum:

"The prayer of this passage is intercessory prayer in which the praying brother seeks forgiveness for a sin that he sees another commit. However, if this sin is one of such proportion that scripture has taught us to turn the person over to Satan, then a prayer for that sin should not be made. Now, let us look at some applications.

Why not?

1John dealt with those who denied that Jesus is the Christ (1John 2:22-23; 4:2, 15; 5:1). Very likely, this is one of the sins unto death that John has in mind. In 2John 1:9, John declared, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” Why should we ask God to forgive someone for the sin of denying the person of Jesus Christ?

However, 1John 5:16-17 does not deny us the right or responsibility of praying for the sinner. What is in question is prayer for the sin. In fact, we should pray that the consequences of sin should lead the sinner to God. But we should not pray that God should forgive them of their sins on behalf of the praying brother’s prayer.

There may still be cases where it is difficult to draw the line. However, the principle is clear. We are encouraged to pray for the forgiveness of the sins of fellow believers when we see them do something that is in disobedience to God. In fact, God promises to answer these prayers in their behalf.

However, when the sins we observe are sins of high immorality or doctrinal infidelity, the rule changes. We may pray for the sinner, but we should not seek to intercede between the sinner and God for the sin. Their only hope to get right with God may be to face the full consequences for their disobedience in this life."

What are the full consequence for their disobedience? May they lose their Justification/Salvation? This interpretation seems to be agreeing that there are sins that can cause you to lose your Salvation. Catholics would call this the loss of “Sanctifying Grace”. If this is similar to what you believe, then this thread is not aimed at you. I really don’t much care if our language is different; what I care about is if our ideas are different - our theology. And, if you do actually agree with me (which I think you do), then you should join me in arguing against those who disagree with the clear teaching of the Bible here. Right?

 

[SyCarl]

If a person has faith, God will forgive him any sin. Therefore the sin which is to death is ceasing to have faith or total apostasy. Since salvation and forgiveness is accepted by faith, if a person does not have faith that sin will not be forgiven because he is unwilling to accept the forgiveness.

So sin not leading to death is any sin other than total apostasy. Remember that not all Protestants accept Once Saved Always Saved. Even for those who do, they can never know for certain if someone is one of the elect. Not knowing that, they should still pray for the forgiveness of a sin other than apostasy, if only to help the person in their effort for sanctification.

And of course we can still pray that an apostate return to the faith.

However, the passage does not really fit into the Catholic notion of venial and mortal sin. John speaks of the result of prayer as God giving life to the sinner whose sin is not to death. However, Catholic teaching is that a venial sin does not deprive one of life, so why is it necessary to pray that life be given to the person?

It does fit in though with the Protestant view that the wages of all sin is death, but that only apostasy cannot be forgiven while the person is still an apostate.

 

[Rightlydivide]

What are the full consequence for their disobedience? May they lose their Justification/Salvation? This interpretation seems to be agreeing that there are sins that can cause you to lose your Salvation. Catholics would call this the loss of “Sanctifying Grace”. If this is similar to what you believe, then this thread is not aimed at you. I really don’t much care if our language is different; what I care about is if our ideas are different - our theology. And, if you do actually agree with me (which I think you do), then you should join me in arguing against those who disagree with the clear teaching of the Bible here. Right?

A plausible interpretation is the sin being referred to IS the rejection of Christ as savior.

 

[Atreyu]

If a person has faith, God will forgive him any sin. Therefore the sin which is to death is ceasing to have faith or total apostasy. Since salvation and forgiveness is accepted by faith, if a person does not have faith that sin will not be forgiven because he is unwilling to accept the forgiveness.

So sin not leading to death is any sin other than total apostasy. Remember that not all Protestants accept Once Saved Always Saved. Even for those who do, they can never know for certain if someone is one of the elect. Not knowing that, they should still pray for the forgiveness of a sin other than apostasy, if only to help the person in their effort for sanctification.

And of course we can still pray that an apostate return to the faith.

However, the passage does not really fit into the Catholic notion of venial and mortal sin. John speaks of the result of prayer as God giving life to the sinner whose sin is not to death. However, Catholic teaching is that a venial sin does not deprive one of life, so why is it necessary to pray that life be given to the person?

It does fit in though with the Protestant view that the wages of all sin is death, but that only apostasy cannot be forgiven while the person is still an apostate.

I don’t particular care what the sin is that leads to death - that is not the point of this thread. All that I care about (for this thread) is the existence or not of mortal sin. This passage clearly shows that there is mortal sin; that once saved always saved is not Biblical.

As for your claim that this doesn’t fit Catholic doctrine, I say that “giving life” is simply an underdeveloped term for “partial indulgence” - which I’m not even sure is the right term, but the concept is the same.

SyCarl can you please answer me one question: can a person, once Justified, lose that Justification? Is it conceivably possible?

 

[SyCarl]

I don’t particular care what the sin is that leads to death - that is not the point of this thread. All that I care about (for this thread) is the existence or not of mortal sin. This passage clearly shows that there is mortal sin; that once saved always saved is not Biblical.

As for your claim that this doesn’t fit Catholic doctrine, I say that “giving life” is simply an underdeveloped term for “partial indulgence” - which I’m not even sure is the right term, but the concept is the same.

SyCarl can you please answer me one question: can a person, once Justified, lose that Justification? Is it conceivably possible?

You asked for a Protestant explanation. I provided one. That is that we should pray for all of our brother’s sin, because they all can be forgiven as long as the brother has faith. The exception is the sin that will not be forgiven, the sin which is to death or apostasy. Since there is no faith, there is nothing through which forgiveness can be received.

Even if we accept that the sacrament of penance is necessary, the apostate would not avail himself of it.

If he returns to faith the his sin can be forgiven since he once again has the channel through which forgiveness flows.

I think from the above that it can be seen that I do not hold to “once saved always saved”. However, even if I did the explanation still holds. Calvinists also believe in sanctification. If someone sinces they should be prayed for to strengthen their growth in sanctification. If they renounce the faith they never really had it. However a Calvinist can never tell if someone is actually elect, which is a pricipal problem with that system. Since they can’t know, they should still pray for everyone since they believe that even if someone appears to lapse, if they are one of the elect the apparent lapse is only temporary.

 

[ralphinal]

If any sin can be forgiven, why does Jesus teach us about an unforgivable sin?

 

[flyersfan1088]

We may pray for the sinner, but we should not seek to intercede between the sinner and God for the sin.

Huh? By praying for the sinner, you are interceding between them and God. That’s the very definition of praying for someone.

 

[Atreyu]

You asked for a Protestant explanation. I provided one. That is that we should pray for all of our brother’s sin, because they all can be forgiven as long as the brother has faith. The exception is the sin that will not be forgiven, the sin which is to death or apostasy. Since there is no faith, there is nothing through which forgiveness can be received.

Even if we accept that the sacrament of penance is necessary, the apostate would not avail himself of it.

If he returns to faith the his sin can be forgiven since he once again has the channel through which forgiveness flows.

I think from the above that it can be seen that I do not hold to “once saved always saved”.

Well then, this thread doesn’t apply to you.

However, even if I did the explanation still holds.

No, it doesn’t. I would ask them the same question I asked of you and you didn’t answer:
can a person, once Justified, lose that Justification? Is it conceivably possible?
They would presumably answer “No”. Well then I would show them this verse, and ask them how there could possibly be a sin - any sin - that leads to death.

On another issue, you said that the wages of sin is death, but do you really believe that? You don’t, do you? You believe that lack of faith leads to death, not sin. If you believed that the wages of sin is death then you would believe in mortal sin, wouldn’t you?

That being said, I still think it’s possible that you do believe in mortal sin, you just don’t call it that and you don’t have the development that goes with it. If this is true, then my previous argument also doesn’t apply to you either.

 

[Judy_Uddy]

The purpose of this thread is to show that Protestantism is deficient since it has no concept of mortal or venial sin. If your particular Protestant faith tradition does have this concept, then this thread does not apply to you. However, it is my understanding that most Protestants do not have this concept purely for the fact that it contradicts their understanding of Justification. I believe that if I am successful in showing that the Bible clearly teaches the concept of mortal and venial sin, then a reasonable conclusion is that the traditional Protestant understanding of Justification is also wrong.

To restate a little (although it is an aside to the topic of this thread), I think the only reason Protestants don’t have a concept of mortal and venial sin is because of their traditional teaching on Justification. In other words, Protestants come to the Bible with a pre-conceived notion of Justification and then try to fit the clear teaching of the Bible into this understanding (instead of the other way around, which is what most Protestants claim). However, the concept of mortal and venial sin is clearly taught in the Bible (as I will attempt to show below), and so Protestants must embrace this concept and reject their prior understanding of Justification, since it is not supported by the Bible.

The particular passage I will refer to is, of course, the fifth chapter of the first letter of John. Here is the relevant passage (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.
I have never seen a Protestant adequately explain how this fits in with their theology on Justification. Instead, the Protestant apologetics that I have seen simply claims that this passage doesn’t fit with the Catholic understanding of mortal and venial sin, and then they think that their job is done and they move on. To wit, Joe Mizzi, who quotes Protestant author H. M. Carson:

I will later explain how this clearly does fit in with Catholic theology on mortal and venial sin. But for now, I want to ask some questions for all Protestants reading this thread:
If you see your brother or neighbour sin, will you pray for him? Are there particular sins for which you will not pray? And, most importantly, if there does indeed exist sin which “leads unto death”, then how does this fit in with your theology that Justification (or salvation or whatever you call it) once gained cannot be lost?
This passage clearly demonstrates that the notion of “once saved always saved” is not Biblical. If the brothers committing the sins are not already Justified, then these sins can hardly lead to death can they? Since they are already dead. But if the brothers committing the sins are Justified, then this passage demonstrates that they can lose that Justification.

Now I will explain how this passage fits in with Catholic theology. To do so, let’s assume that the passage is indeed talking about the Catholic concept of mortal sin; that the “sin that leads to death” is equivalent to the Catholic “mortal sin”, and the “sin that does not lead to death” is the Catholic “venial sin”.

Now if a Catholic prays for his brother who has committed a venial sin, then this merits (I think that is the right word) a partial indulgence for the sinner. In other words, praying for the brother who has committed a venial sin has a very real benefit, and so I say you should pray for this brother.

However, if a Catholic prays for his brother who has committed a mortal sin, then what happens? Absolutely nothing. There is no point in praying for your brother who has committed a mortal sin, and so I say you should not do it. Better to pray for your brothers that have committed venial sins.

On the other hand, I have no idea which sins of my brothers are mortal and which are venial, so I would probably pray for them all regardless. But even if I do this, I know that my prayer for my brothers who have committed mortal sins will do absolutely nothing.

 

[twiggymoo]

As an Independent Baptist I can tell you that although Protestants know about 1 John 5, they consider all sin the same (sin is sin). There are no degrees of sin. The preacher in a sermon invariably proclaims: “It doesn’t matter what you’ve done, God loves you and wants to forgive you”. Sins, past, present, and future are (were) also forgiven on the cross. There is also no distinction made as to the saved or unsaved. The ground is “level at the foot of the cross”. There is no mortal or venial sin. Just sin.

 

[ckempston]

As an Independent Baptist I can tell you that although Protestants know about 1 John 5, they consider all sin the same (sin is sin). There are no degrees of sin. The preacher in a sermon invariably proclaims: “It doesn’t matter what you’ve done, God loves you and wants to forgive you”. Sins, past, present, and future are (were) also forgiven on the cross. There is also no distinction made as to the saved or unsaved. The ground is “level at the foot of the cross”. There is no mortal or venial sin. Just sin.

The difference between “mortal” and “venial” sin is that one “leads to death” and the other is forgiveable. John explicitly says this. In fact, Jesus explicitly says this: there is unforgivable sin(s). Mortal and venial are just different words to describe exactly what John has written, and Jesus has himself said.

If all sins are equal, how do you explain the “many blows” vs. “few blows” passages? How can you explain that someone is worse off who knows Christ and then leaves, than someone who has never known? How will it be “more tolerable” on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon? How can you explain the special status of virgins in heaven, and martyrs, and the “building up” of treasure in heaven?

It seems to me that if there are degrees of punishment and reward, the existence of degrees of sin necessarily follow.

 

[twiggymoo]

The difference between “mortal” and “venial” sin is that one “leads to death” and the other is forgiveable. John explicitly says this. In fact, Jesus explicitly says this: there is unforgivable sin(s). Mortal and venial are just different words to describe exactly what John has written, and Jesus has himself said.

If all sins are equal, how do you explain the “many blows” vs. “few blows” passages? How can you explain that someone is worse off who knows Christ and then leaves, than someone who has never known? How will it be “more tolerable” on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon? How can you explain the special status of virgins in heaven, and martyrs, and the “building up” of treasure in heaven?

It seems to me that if there are degrees of punishment and reward, the existence of degrees of sin necessarily follow.

Yes, I know that, I’m just saying what Protestants in my circle believe in practicality. They acknowledge 1 John 5, but there doesn’t seem to be any sin that is “unforgivable” or they don’t want to make that judgment or leap in any given scenario.

 

[Atreyu]

Yes, I know that, I’m just saying what Protestants in my circle believe in practicality. They acknowledge 1 John 5, but there doesn’t seem to be any sin that is “unforgivable” or they don’t want to make that judgment or leap in any given scenario.

Twiggy, it sounds to me as if you’re saying you just ignore the passage. Is that true? If not, then what do you think it means?

 

[ckempston]

Twiggy, it sounds to me as if you’re saying you just ignore the passage. Is that true? If not, then what do you think it means?

That’s the impression I got from that too. The unforgiveable sin is un-repentance/impenitence (whatever you want to call it). It’s quite simple, actually.

 

[twiggymoo]

Twiggy, it sounds to me as if you’re saying you just ignore the passage. Is that true? If not, then what do you think it means?

Atreyu,
There are many other Scriptures that Protestants ignore or are passive about and this is one of them.
I don’t agree with their interpretations or lack thereof - Although I still attend my anti-catholic fundamentalist independent baptist church, I am out of synch with them on many levels. I think the passage is referring to mortal and venial sins and there are degrees of sin.

 

[ckempston]

Atreyu,
There are many other Scriptures that Protestants ignore or are passive about and this is one of them.
I don’t agree with their interpretations or lack thereof - Although I still attend my anti-catholic fundamentalist independent baptist church, I am out of synch with them on many levels. I think the passage is referring to mortal and venial sins and there are degrees of sin.

Twig - sounds like you and I are in fairly similar positions.

 

[twiggymoo]

Twig - sounds like you and I are in fairly similar positions.

ckempston
Do you also attend a fundamentalist church?

 

[ckempston]

ckempston
Do you also attend a fundamentalist church?

I am part of what used to be the International Churches of Christ. I would call it fundamentalist, but most members and leaders probably don’t see it that way.