Hi Steve ... haven't bugged you in a while so I thought I'd see if you are still willing to explain "milk" issues. I've been having discussions with Catholics about the notion of there being degrees of sin. If you have a copy of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", you will find a complex organization of articles that are easiest to access if one uses their continuous paragraph numbering system, which is what I will refer to.
Paragraph 1852 states, "There are a great many kinds of sins.” 1854 claims "Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience."
Those who hold to these notions are unable to cite Scripture which unambiguously teaches "... the distinction between mortal and venial sin". I, likewise, cannot do the same to show that this is a tradition and not Scriptural doctrine.
Would you refer me to verses in Scripture that clearly refute the concept of "mortal" and "venial" sin?
degrees of sin
degrees of sin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Joe Marcheski
degrees of sin
Somehow I assumed I was addressing Steve Gregg when I wrote the initial correspondence in this topic; but either I was mistaken, or Steve is not in the mood to reply. In any case, I'd like to open the inquiry to anyone interested in the subject. And let me add that I'm not trying to bash Catholics; they are "family" and have been my introduction to Christianity. I just think that the distinction between major and minor sins, such as "mortal" and "venial", is not found in Scripture as claimed by Catholic doctrine. My problem is the inability to refute such doctrine with clear, unambiguous scriptural references of my own. I know Steve has the ability to pinpoint these kinds of inquiries so I naturally thought of him, but anyone who can help is welcome to reply.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Joe Marcheski
When I called the radio show the other day asking my question that I posted on here (about sin vs. transgression vs. iniquity) Steve mentioned at the end of the call that he was planning on posting an answer to your question about the degrees of sin. I think he's been really busy lately and away from home, but from what I know he was planning on answering your question at some point in time.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"How is it that Christians today will pay $20 to hear the latest Christian concert, but Jesus can't draw a crowd?"
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
Thanks for the info! I'm sure he is a busy guy, and I don't catch him on the radio very often. I'll just wait for his reply ... or anyone else's.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Joe Marcheski
Hi,
I'm all too familiar with the deliniation of sins according to the Catholic Church. I only need to think about the banishment of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden (not to mention the fall of mankind and the curse put on the earth) to know that simply taking a bite out of a piece of fruit...if it is in disobedience to God, is enough to warrent death! Mortal, venial...call it whatever you want to call it...disobedience is disobedience no matter how you slice it!
I once heard a story of a woman who lived in a mining town. One morning she washed her sheets and hung them on a clothes line to dry. As they hung in her yard, with the backdrop of the soot laden hills behind them, she felt a sense of pride and accomplishment at how very white and clean her laundry was. That evening, it snowed. She had forgotten to take the sheets off of the line and to her astonishment, her once dazzling white looking sheets...were revealed as soiled, dingy and out and out filthy compared to the pure white snow that had fallen and were now the backdrop and comparison point!
When the world is our standard, and we compare our own sins to those of others, we can look almost sparkly and clean. It would stand to reason in using the world as our standard, that we should classify our sins into neat categories ...some being "dirtier" than others...But when we use Jesus Christ as our standard...ALL sin...even the smallest and seemingly most hidden....even the smallest of disobedient acts.... looks black, dirty and soiled compared with the unimaginable purity and holiness of Jesus Christ
Mark 9:2-3 - After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.
Keeping HIM as our standard, keeps our minds off of the nonsensical classification of one disobedient act being worse than another and instead refocuses our thoughts and attentions to the fact that however small we may think our sins is, He carried it on that day in history and paid dearly for it! He paid for ALL sins.
Hebrews 3:1 - Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess.
Instead of letting out thoughts be consumed with classifing our sin into categories, let us instead offer our Lord, repentant, grateful hearts, with our thoughts being focused on Him and what He did for us on Calvary!
[/i]
I'm all too familiar with the deliniation of sins according to the Catholic Church. I only need to think about the banishment of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden (not to mention the fall of mankind and the curse put on the earth) to know that simply taking a bite out of a piece of fruit...if it is in disobedience to God, is enough to warrent death! Mortal, venial...call it whatever you want to call it...disobedience is disobedience no matter how you slice it!
I once heard a story of a woman who lived in a mining town. One morning she washed her sheets and hung them on a clothes line to dry. As they hung in her yard, with the backdrop of the soot laden hills behind them, she felt a sense of pride and accomplishment at how very white and clean her laundry was. That evening, it snowed. She had forgotten to take the sheets off of the line and to her astonishment, her once dazzling white looking sheets...were revealed as soiled, dingy and out and out filthy compared to the pure white snow that had fallen and were now the backdrop and comparison point!
When the world is our standard, and we compare our own sins to those of others, we can look almost sparkly and clean. It would stand to reason in using the world as our standard, that we should classify our sins into neat categories ...some being "dirtier" than others...But when we use Jesus Christ as our standard...ALL sin...even the smallest and seemingly most hidden....even the smallest of disobedient acts.... looks black, dirty and soiled compared with the unimaginable purity and holiness of Jesus Christ
Mark 9:2-3 - After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.
Keeping HIM as our standard, keeps our minds off of the nonsensical classification of one disobedient act being worse than another and instead refocuses our thoughts and attentions to the fact that however small we may think our sins is, He carried it on that day in history and paid dearly for it! He paid for ALL sins.
Hebrews 3:1 - Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess.
Instead of letting out thoughts be consumed with classifing our sin into categories, let us instead offer our Lord, repentant, grateful hearts, with our thoughts being focused on Him and what He did for us on Calvary!
[/i]
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Joe,
I know you have been waiting for me to weigh-in on this. I have delayed because I have been trying to get a handle on what it is that Roman Catholics are really getting at when they make the distinction between mortal and venial sins. There are still aspects of this position that I don't quite understand. As near as I can tell, in Catholic theology, a "mortal sin" must have three characteristics:
1. It must be a grievous offense (an adjective which seems difficult to define, it seems to me);
2. It must be committed as a deliberate act of the will (I guess this rules out wrongdoing that is committed accidentally or, perhaps, under compulsion);
3. It must be committed with full knowledge that it is a mortal sin (giving, I suppose, some concession for what we might call "sins of ignorance").
If a sin fails to meet all three of these criteria (that is, if it meets one or two only), as I understand it, it is considered to be a "venial sin." I guess what I don't understand is what the Catholic teaching would be about the difference in penalties and in remedies for the two kinds of sins.
I agree with Paula's statements above. I also know that there were differing penalties in the Old Testament for different sins. For example, some sins had to be punished with the death of the sinner, while others could be remedied with the payment of a monetary penalty. It is clear that the former category were treated as more heinous sins than were the latter, but, seeing these penalties were administered by magistrates as part of maintaining the civil order, these differences may merely reflect their status as crimes against society--some being more hurtful to society or the public than others--while even the "petty" crimes would stand as acts of rebellion against God as much as the greater crimes, and might be equally punishable in the higher court of heaven.
James says that to break one law is to break them all (James 2:10). In the law, an atonement had to be made for sins committed in ignorance as surely as for those done knowingly (Lev.5:18/ Ezek.45:20/ Heb.9:7). Any breach of righteousness, intentional or not, creates victims. Even those "victimless" crimes that are thought to hurt no one still offend the sensitivities of God and the holy angels, victimizing them.
All unrighteousness disrupts the perfect harmony of God's moral order. Whether an expensive urn is broken out of malice or merely out of carelessness, the urn remains broken, and someone is out the expense until payment has been made. Equal remorse is appropriate on the part of the careless party as much as if he had destroyed the thing on purpose.
It could be argued about sins of ignorance or accidental sins, that, had the perpetrator been more interested in doing right in the sight of God, he often could have been more reflective and cautious about his conduct, and his lack of doing so indicates his taking his duty to God more lightly than he should.
Yet we know that God sometimes punishes with less severity those sins that are committed in true ignorance (Jonah 4:11/Luke 12:47-48/Acts 17:30/ 1 Tim.1:13). However, this may not be because God sustained less injury from those sins, but only that He is magnanimous and gracious toward our weakness (Ps.103:14).
I know you have been waiting for me to weigh-in on this. I have delayed because I have been trying to get a handle on what it is that Roman Catholics are really getting at when they make the distinction between mortal and venial sins. There are still aspects of this position that I don't quite understand. As near as I can tell, in Catholic theology, a "mortal sin" must have three characteristics:
1. It must be a grievous offense (an adjective which seems difficult to define, it seems to me);
2. It must be committed as a deliberate act of the will (I guess this rules out wrongdoing that is committed accidentally or, perhaps, under compulsion);
3. It must be committed with full knowledge that it is a mortal sin (giving, I suppose, some concession for what we might call "sins of ignorance").
If a sin fails to meet all three of these criteria (that is, if it meets one or two only), as I understand it, it is considered to be a "venial sin." I guess what I don't understand is what the Catholic teaching would be about the difference in penalties and in remedies for the two kinds of sins.
I agree with Paula's statements above. I also know that there were differing penalties in the Old Testament for different sins. For example, some sins had to be punished with the death of the sinner, while others could be remedied with the payment of a monetary penalty. It is clear that the former category were treated as more heinous sins than were the latter, but, seeing these penalties were administered by magistrates as part of maintaining the civil order, these differences may merely reflect their status as crimes against society--some being more hurtful to society or the public than others--while even the "petty" crimes would stand as acts of rebellion against God as much as the greater crimes, and might be equally punishable in the higher court of heaven.
James says that to break one law is to break them all (James 2:10). In the law, an atonement had to be made for sins committed in ignorance as surely as for those done knowingly (Lev.5:18/ Ezek.45:20/ Heb.9:7). Any breach of righteousness, intentional or not, creates victims. Even those "victimless" crimes that are thought to hurt no one still offend the sensitivities of God and the holy angels, victimizing them.
All unrighteousness disrupts the perfect harmony of God's moral order. Whether an expensive urn is broken out of malice or merely out of carelessness, the urn remains broken, and someone is out the expense until payment has been made. Equal remorse is appropriate on the part of the careless party as much as if he had destroyed the thing on purpose.
It could be argued about sins of ignorance or accidental sins, that, had the perpetrator been more interested in doing right in the sight of God, he often could have been more reflective and cautious about his conduct, and his lack of doing so indicates his taking his duty to God more lightly than he should.
Yet we know that God sometimes punishes with less severity those sins that are committed in true ignorance (Jonah 4:11/Luke 12:47-48/Acts 17:30/ 1 Tim.1:13). However, this may not be because God sustained less injury from those sins, but only that He is magnanimous and gracious toward our weakness (Ps.103:14).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Greetings...
Although I cannot locate this specifically in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I do remeber being taught that if a person dies in unconfessed Mortal sin, they would go directly to hell...without passing GO...without collecting $200. If a person died with unconfessed venial sin, they would have to spend a few more years in purgatory. (don't laugh...this is true!)
According to the Catechism...the deliniation of sins has more to do with the necissity of the sinner to obtain absolution from a priest through the sacrament of Reconciliation. Mortal sins ABSOLUTELY require the sinner to obtain pardon via the priest, whereby venial sins aren't. Also, the commitment of a MORTAL sin, precludes the sinner from receiving Communion until a "sacramental confession" is made.
The following is cut and pasted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church...
Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly
According to the Church's command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."56 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.57 Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.
Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.59 Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father's mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful
I hope this sheds some light on the Catholic teachings regarding sins.
Paula
Although I cannot locate this specifically in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I do remeber being taught that if a person dies in unconfessed Mortal sin, they would go directly to hell...without passing GO...without collecting $200. If a person died with unconfessed venial sin, they would have to spend a few more years in purgatory. (don't laugh...this is true!)
According to the Catechism...the deliniation of sins has more to do with the necissity of the sinner to obtain absolution from a priest through the sacrament of Reconciliation. Mortal sins ABSOLUTELY require the sinner to obtain pardon via the priest, whereby venial sins aren't. Also, the commitment of a MORTAL sin, precludes the sinner from receiving Communion until a "sacramental confession" is made.
The following is cut and pasted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church...
Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly
According to the Church's command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."56 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.57 Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.
Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.59 Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father's mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful
I hope this sheds some light on the Catholic teachings regarding sins.
Paula
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Mortal Sin
John clearly states in I John 5:16 that there is sin which is mortal, that is, leads to death. Most interpreters understand this as being "spiritual" death, that is Hell (Gehenna)
Here is the quote from the Revised Standard:
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.
John seemed to have been saying that there was hope for the person whose sin was "not mortal", but that there is no point in praying for the one who has committed a mortal sin, since it is going to lead to death.
As Catholic theology developed, the term "venial" was used for the kind of sin that John said was "not mortal".
Here is the quote from the Revised Standard:
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.
John seemed to have been saying that there was hope for the person whose sin was "not mortal", but that there is no point in praying for the one who has committed a mortal sin, since it is going to lead to death.
As Catholic theology developed, the term "venial" was used for the kind of sin that John said was "not mortal".
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald