Mortal Sin: Yea or Nay?

[zippy2006]

What do you think of the doctrine of mortal sin? This doctrine is often associated with Catholicism and says that some sins are so grievous as to require a special form of repentance or reparation.

According to the doctrine, these sins, when done with freedom and knowledge, place one outside of salvation. That is, when one commits a mortal sin they move from a "state of grace" into a "state of sin," and must repent of the sin in order to be forgiven and move back into a "state of grace." An example of a mortal sin would be murder. Less grievous sins are called venial sins and do not have such a dramatic effect on one's life of faith. The closest scriptural parallel is 1 John 5:16-17.

This is just the basic idea, and this thread isn't meant to be about Catholicism or the specific Catholic understanding which involves sacramental confession and the like. This basic doctrine of mortal sin entails only a few things besides mortal sin. They are: venial sin, the state of grace, and the state of sin. I think most denominations hold to this doctrine in one form or another.

I have scrutinized the doctrine to some extent and I find that I am content with it. There are obviously pros and cons:


Cons and Objections

• Emphasis is placed on the human act and one's ability to place themselves outside of salvation.
• It may lead to a scrupulosity which focuses more on sin than on God.
• It may lead to undue self-referentiality about the state of one's soul.
• Without an authoritative legislator it is hard to understand which sins are mortal and which are venial.

Pros

• The gravity of certain sins is emphasized. This is intuitive and follows the OT logic of differentiating based on the sin in question.
• The doctrine threads a needle between the errors of presumption and despair.
• It brings a concreteness to one's religious life that makes it much harder to deceive oneself.
• The doctrine appears to be indispensable for the vast majority of Christians, namely those who reject both Universalism and OSAS ("Once-saved, Always-saved").

 

[Halbhh]

What do you think of the doctrine of mortal sin? This doctrine is often associated with Catholicism and says that some sins are so grievous as to require a special form of repentance or reparation.

According to the doctrine, these sins, when done with freedom and knowledge, place one outside of salvation. That is, when one commits a mortal sin they move from a "state of grace" into a "state of sin," and must repent of the sin in order to be forgiven and move back into a "state of grace." An example of a mortal sin would be murder. Less grievous sins are called venial sins and do not have such a dramatic effect on one's life of faith. The closest scriptural parallel is 1 John 5:16-17.

This is just the basic idea, and this thread isn't meant to be about Catholicism or the specific Catholic understanding which involves sacramental confession and the like. This basic doctrine of mortal sin entails only a few things besides mortal sin. They are: venial sin, the state of grace, and the state of sin. I think most denominations hold to this doctrine in one form or another.

I have scrutinized the doctrine to some extent and I find that I am content with it. There are obviously pros and cons:


Cons and Objections

• Emphasis is placed on the human act and one's ability to place themselves outside of salvation.
• It may lead to a scrupulosity which focuses more on sin than on God.
• It may lead to undue self-referentiality about the state of one's soul.
• Without an authoritative legislator it is hard to understand which sins are mortal and which are venial.

Pros

• The gravity of certain sins is emphasized. This is intuitive and follows the OT logic of differentiating based on the sin in question.
• The doctrine threads a needle between the errors of presumption and despair.
• It brings a concreteness to one's religious life that makes it much harder to deceive oneself.
• The doctrine appears to be indispensable for the vast majority of Christians, namely those who reject both Universalism and OSAS ("Once-saved, Always-saved").

Well, in many places in the New Testament, we hear from the Word that there are wrongs that aren't forgiven unless we truly repent of them. (when we truly confess/repent, we are cleansed -- 1rst John chapter 1)

For example:

1 Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Revelation 21:8 But to the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and sexually immoral and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death."
(there are more, but these should illustrate perfectly)

Here's another one that we really need to be sure we are doing, because it's a lot more common I think for church goers than drunkenness or habitual lying even:

Matthew 6:14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you.
Matthew 6:15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.

It's crucially important to forgive anyone/everyone that you hold anything against, and at times we might need to pray for help to fully forgive, when the offense was a very serious one.
(forgiving means to truly not hold it against them anymore, but one needn't put oneself in danger of the same attack from the person who hasn't reformed fully; for example when you've truly forgiven someone, you can usually be able for instance to greet them or be kind towards them, even as you may take care not to put yourself in a place where they could repeat the offense)

 

[zippy2006]

Well, in many places in the New Testament, we hear from the Word that there are wrongs that aren't forgiven unless we truly repent of them. (when we truly confess/repent, we are cleansed -- 1rst John chapter 1)

Right. There are also places where someone is disqualified because of something they have done or failed to do:

• Then he will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:45-46)
  
• "So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents... And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matthew 25:28, 30)
  
• "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'" (Matthew 22:11-13)

 

[Sabertooth]

If one is not Saved, there is no difference in sins before God.

The punishment for "bearing false witness against your neighbor" is the same as for murder & the various iterations of adultery.

And if we live to repent, they are completely forgiven before God. But not all sins have the same level of consequences down here.

Murder & adultery have grievous consequences on Earth, even when we are forgiven by God. Borrowing a pen and forgetting to return it, not so much.

But we shouldn't mistake Earthly consequences as a sign that God hasn't forgiven us, when we repented.

 

[zippy2006]

If one is not Saved, there is no difference in sins before God.

The punishment for "bearing false witness against your neighbor" is the same as for murder & the various iterations of adultery.

And if we live to repent, they are completely forgiven before God. But not all sins have the same level of consequences down here.

Murder & adultery have grievous consequences on Earth, even when we are forgiven by God. Borrowing a pen and forgetting to return it, not so much.

But we shouldn't mistake Earthly consequences as a sign that God hasn't forgiven us, when we repented.

So if an unbeliever repents, they are completely forgiven. That makes sense. Would you say that a believer who commits a serious sin needs to repent and be forgiven by God? For example, if a believer commits murder would they need to repent?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Murder & adultery have grievous consequences on Earth, even when we are forgiven by God. Borrowing a pen and forgetting to return it, not so much.

Even in these cases redemption in this life can be profound.

It was with Paul.

 

[Anthony2019]

I believe there is such as thing as mortal (or deadly) sin, since it is an area of theology that has been very well established and has been around since the earliest days of Christianity. In my view, the doctrine of venial and mortal sin is well supported by scripture.

Galatians 5:21 provides a list of such sins and those partaking in them will not inherit the kingdom of God. Believer or non-believer - it makes no difference. If we commit serious sins such as lying, cheating, murdering, or walking away from our faith, then our union with Christ is damaged until we repent and seek forgiveness.

I do believe that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a valid one and I agree with Catholics that a person in a state of mortal sin should see their priest and confess their sins. As well as giving the assurance of forgiveness, a priest can also offer help and guidance. Where I differ from the Catholic point of view is that I believe that a person does not have to wait days or weeks to attend Confession to be granted forgiveness, when our Lord so eagerly and graciously offers it to anyone the moment they truly repent.

 

[RaymondG]

Would you say that a believer who commits a serious sin needs to repent and be forgiven by God?

The bible explains that this is not possible.....assuming you are equating believer to born again.

"8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

Therefore I find it a little unproductive to categorize the sins of believers....for they do not exist.

So that leaves us only to the categorization of the sins of sinners. The answer to them all would be simply repent and be baptised.....regardless of your past.

 

[zippy2006]

The bible explains that this is not possible.....assuming you are equating believer to born again.

"8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

Therefore I find it a little unproductive to categorize the sins of believers....for they do not exist.

So that leaves us only to the categorization of the sins of sinners. The answer to them all would be simply repent and be baptised.....regardless of your past.

The problem here is that you are quoting from 1 John, the same letter I referenced in my OP. Here is the verse I referenced:

"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." (1 John 5:16-17, RSV)
​

Why does the same author explicitly contradict your claim that it is unproductive to categorize the sins of believers? He does just that two chapters later.

 

[1213]

What do you think of the doctrine of mortal sin? ...

Bible seems to have only one mortal sin, sin that cannot be forgiven:

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
Matt. 12:31

 

[zippy2006]

I believe there is such as thing as mortal (or deadly) sin, since it is an area of theology that has been very well established and has been around since the earliest days of Christianity. In my view, the doctrine of venial and mortal sin is well supported by scripture.

Galatians 5:21 provides a list of such sins and those partaking in them will not inherit the kingdom of God. Believer or non-believer - it makes no difference. If we commit serious sins such as lying, cheating, murdering, or walking away from our faith, then our union with Christ is damaged until we repent and seek forgiveness.

I do believe that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a valid one and I agree with Catholics that a person in a state of mortal sin should see their priest and confess their sins. As well as giving the assurance of forgiveness, a priest can also offer help and guidance. Where I differ from the Catholic point of view is that I believe that a person does not have to wait days or weeks to attend Confession to be granted forgiveness, when our Lord so eagerly and graciously offers it to anyone the moment they truly repent.

Thanks, that makes sense to me. Regarding the Catholic doctrine, it is that if one truly repents (with "perfect contrition") then they are forgiven at the moment of repentance, but they should still go to confess their sin to a priest when they have an opportunity. "Perfect contrition" can be a bit tricky, but to a large extent Catholicism acknowledges the legitimacy of your point about not having to wait.

 

[zippy2006]

Bible seems to have only one mortal sin, sin that cannot be forgiven:

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
Matt. 12:31

A mortal sin is not a sin that cannot be forgiven, but rather a sin that "places one outside of salvation," to quote the OP. It is important to note that, generally speaking, mortal sins can be forgiven.

 

[NBB]

There is sins that affect us more than others, in consequences for our body and spirit, the communion with God, risk of being enslaved and hard to get out of that sin etc.
Sexual sins just destroys our communion with God, and our body and spirit may need lots of cleansing and healing from that.

 

[eleos1954]

What do you think of the doctrine of mortal sin? This doctrine is often associated with Catholicism and says that some sins are so grievous as to require a special form of repentance or reparation.

According to the doctrine, these sins, when done with freedom and knowledge, place one outside of salvation. That is, when one commits a mortal sin they move from a "state of grace" into a "state of sin," and must repent of the sin in order to be forgiven and move back into a "state of grace." An example of a mortal sin would be murder. Less grievous sins are called venial sins and do not have such a dramatic effect on one's life of faith. The closest scriptural parallel is 1 John 5:16-17.

This is just the basic idea, and this thread isn't meant to be about Catholicism or the specific Catholic understanding which involves sacramental confession and the like. This basic doctrine of mortal sin entails only a few things besides mortal sin. They are: venial sin, the state of grace, and the state of sin. I think most denominations hold to this doctrine in one form or another.

I have scrutinized the doctrine to some extent and I find that I am content with it. There are obviously pros and cons:


Cons and Objections

• Emphasis is placed on the human act and one's ability to place themselves outside of salvation.
• It may lead to a scrupulosity which focuses more on sin than on God.
• It may lead to undue self-referentiality about the state of one's soul.
• Without an authoritative legislator it is hard to understand which sins are mortal and which are venial.

Pros

• The gravity of certain sins is emphasized. This is intuitive and follows the OT logic of differentiating based on the sin in question.
• The doctrine threads a needle between the errors of presumption and despair.
• It brings a concreteness to one's religious life that makes it much harder to deceive oneself.
• The doctrine appears to be indispensable for the vast majority of Christians, namely those who reject both Universalism and OSAS ("Once-saved, Always-saved").

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (continuous rejection of) is the only unforgivable sin. Sin is sin.

James 2:10
Berean Literal Bible
For whoever shall keep the whole Law, but shall stumble in one point, he has become guilty of all.

If one does not ask for forgiveness and does not repent then their salvation is as risk. We go directly to God to receive forgiveness and the Holy Spirit helps us to overcome our sin.

Universalism and OSAS are bogus teachings. The Lord never takes away our free choice ... to sin or not to sin .... to love or not to love ... or walk away completely away from Him.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Therefore I find it a little unproductive to categorize the sins of believers....for they do not exist.

How then do we get advice on how to deal with a believer who sins?

Gal 6
1Brothers, if someone is caught in a trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him with a spirit of gentleness. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

 

[Sabertooth]

So if an unbeliever repents, they are completely forgiven. That makes sense. Would you say that a believer who commits a serious sin needs to repent and be forgiven by God? For example, if a believer commits murder would they need to repent?

In modern times, that would be repentance unto Salvation. Such would no longer be an "unbeliever."

In the OT, what you described was the case for King Ahab [1 Kings 21:27-29], but he didn't continue in repentance* (as David did [2 Samuel 12:13-14]).

*God judged Ahab three years later in 1 Kings 22.

Even in these cases redemption in this life can be profound.

It was with Paul.

Yes, but that seems to be the exception.

Therefore I find it a little unproductive to categorize the sins of believers....for they do not exist.

How then do we get advice on how to deal with a believer who sins?

IIUC, he seems to be saying that the categories don't exist.

 

[RaymondG]

The problem here is that you are quoting from 1 John, the same letter I referenced in my OP. Here is the verse I referenced:

"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." (1 John 5:16-17, RSV)
​

Why does the same author explicitly contradict your claim that it is unproductive to categorize the sins of believers? He does just that two chapters later.

I see no contradiction. But I do not look for ways in which the impossible can be made possible.

Those striving for perfection, look not for ways by which they can continue to be imperfect.

Those born of God cannot commit sin.....period.

Believers, I agree, can......yet I still find little reason to put their sins in categories.

 

[RaymondG]

How then do we get advice on how to deal with a believer who sins?

Gal 6
1Brothers, if someone is caught in a trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him with a spirit of gentleness. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

He asked for them that are spiritual to restore the one who trespasses... what do you think the difference is between them that are spiritual and them that are not? Why can any of the brothers restore that one?

 

[Carl Emerson]

He asked for them that are spiritual to restore the one who trespasses... what do you think the difference is between them that are spiritual and them that are not? Why can any of the brothers restore that one?

I am not totally sure of your question but Paul calls on the mature who are less susceptible to pride, yet are warned to approach the matter with humility in case they also fall into sin..
It is clear that the text is talking about believers being restored after falling into sin.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is from Doestoyevsky's Devils, between Stavrogin and the monk Tikhon.

If you were to forgive me, it would make it much easier for me,' he added unexpectedly and in a whisper.
'On the condition that you forgive me as well,' Tikhon replied in a voice full of emotion.
'For what? What have you done to me? Ah, yes, isn't that a monastic formula?`
'For the intended and the unintended. Having sinned, each man has sinned against all men, and each man is responsible in some way for the sins of others. There is no isolated sin. I'm a great sinner, perhaps even greater than you.'

I first read this idea in his other works. It makes sense to me that sin begets sin. When we do evil, we often throw more evil after it, like lying to cover our tracks; or when we hurt someone, they lash out as well. Or how abused children often have personality disorders or become abusers, leasing to ongoing strife. Ultimately we don't know what effect our sin has had. If I steal someone's chocolate bar, leading to him having a bad day and yelling at his subordinate, who then kills himself - do I not partially bear responsibility? This chain of interconnected human interactions can just be extended indefinitely, both spatially and temporally. The way I raise my kids will make their actions partially my responsibility, as mine could perhaps be partially my parents'. The sins of the fathers and all that. How and where does the consequences of my actions cease, that I can say this was only a venial and not a mortal sin? How can I be certain that my actions might not result in this? Is that potential not sufficient that I may be volitionally accepting that such a consequence might occur, and sinning regardless? Does not only God have the necessary perspective to make this call? Further, I am partially responsible for the entirety of the world I find myself in, as who knows what action, when and where, could not have been significantly alleviating suffering. It is communal guilt, which we have placed upon our Scapegoat.

So it seems obvious to me that some sins should be worse than others, such as stealing a chocolate bar versus murder; but in practice, I don't really know if I can say if a specific sin was really only that sin, rather than my contribution to a far greater depravity.

Hence I am not particularly big on erecting a juxtaposition between the mortal and the venial. All sin should be repented of, and all are sinners before God. My decision to label some sin less than another seems more like the Pharisee praying in the temple; how he is better than other men. As the Publican, we are all sinners before God that require repentance and grace; and the danger of considering some sin less than others, runs the risk of saying I am less of a sinner (ie better) than my fellow.

 

[RaymondG]

I am not totally sure of your question but Paul calls on the mature who are less susceptible to pride, yet are warned to approach the matter with humility in case they also fall into sin..
It is clear that the text is talking about believers being restored after falling into sin.

It is clear from the text that Paul ask for "Those that are spiritual" to restore those that sin. Not spiritually mature, or generally mature.......this is something you would have to add in. He ask the spiritual to help those that sin. Why do you think this is? Why not those who are mature believers or mature spiritually? Why not those who have believed for a long time?

It is clear from scripture, that even devils are believers. It is clear from scripture, that even congregations of believers/brother, can know nothing about being born again:

"Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost."

Like I said.....you can believe and sin.....yet "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;"

If you do no agree with this quote from the bible....you can always find a verse that seem to contradict, or a "better" translation, which seems to match closer to what you believe, or find an older manuscript that leaves the the verse out all together. Or you can believe it as is. I find no fault in whichever you choose.