Mortal and Venial Sin

Introduction

Most people think that the distinction between mortal and venial sin is an invention of the Roman Catholic church. In fact it is also the teaching of the Lutheran church, a teaching which, according to the Lutheran Confessions, is drawn directly from the Bible. Lutheran teaching on mortal and venial sin does differ somewhat from Roman Catholic teaching. However that’s not our focus here. The following notes aim to bring together material from the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions which show that not all sins have the same effect. There are some sins which do not separate a believer from Christ. And there are other sins which do. The difference does not lie so much in the specific character of the sin, for all sins are worthy of eternal death. Even the ‘lightest’ sin can become ‘mortal’ in its effects. Rather, the difference lies in the place certain sins have in a person’s life, and the relative effect they have on that person’s relationship with Christ.

The Teaching of the Lutheran Confessions

· Justifying faith ‘has its existence in penitence; that is, it is conceived in the terrors of a conscience that feels God’s wrath against our sins and looks for forgiveness of sins and deliverance from sin…. And so it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh, who take pleasure in their lusts and obey them.’ Apology IV.142-3

· Justifying faith ‘does not remain in those who obey their lusts, nor does it exist together with mortal sin.’ Apology IV.144

· ‘Some fanatics may appear… who hold that once they have received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or once they have become believers, they will persevere in faith even if they sin afterwards, and such sin will not harm them. They cry out, “Do what you will, it matters not as long as you believe, for faith blots out all sins.”…It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel original sin and daily repent and strive against it, fall into open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy), faith and the Holy Spirit have departed from them. This is so because the Holy Spirit does not permit sin to rule and to gain the upper hand in such a way that sin is committed, but the Holy Spirit represses it and restrains it so that it does not do what it wishes.’ Smalcald Articles III.3.42-3

· ‘[M]any people dream up for themselves a dead faith or superstition, without repentance and without good works, as if there could simultaneously be in a single heart both a right faith and a wicked intention to continue and abide in sin, which is impossible. Or as if a person could have and retain true faith, righteousness, and salvation even though he is and continues to be a barren, unfruitful tree since no good fruits appear, yes, even though he were to persist in sins against conscience or embark deliberately on such sins again, which is impious and false.’ Formula of Concord Solid Declaration IV.15

· ‘Therefore we must begin by earnestly criticizing and rejecting the false Epicurean delusion which some dream up that it is impossible to lose faith and the gift of righteousness and salvation, once it has been received, through any sin, even a wanton or deliberate one, or through wicked works; and that even though a Christian follows his evil lusts without fear and shame, resists the Holy Spirit, and deliberately proceeds to sin against his conscience, he can nevertheless retain faith, the grace of God, righteousness and salvation.’ Formula of Concord Solid Declaration IV.31

From the passages quoted here, we may isolate a number of key terms or phrases which are used to designate mortal sin:

· open sin

· permitting sin to rule

· intention to continue and abide in sin

· persisting in sins against conscience

· deliberate sin against conscience

· following lusts without fear or shame

· taking pleasure in lusts and obeying them

Using these terms helps us to distinguish mortal sins from those other sins, termed ‘venial’, which in effect do not deprive the believer of the Holy Spirit and saving faith.

The Teaching of Holy Scripture

· There are a number of passages in the Bible which make it clear that at one level, all sins are equal. All sin is in itself worthy of ‘death’ (Rom 6:23). One sin is as bad as another; to break one commandment is to be guilty of breaking them all (Jam 2:10-11). All have sinned and are without excuse before God (Rom 1:20; 3:23).

· The Bible also makes it clear that Christ has made satisfaction for all sins (1 Jn 2:2; Rom 5:20). No sin is so great that it cannot be forgiven. Christ wants and is able to save even the greatest and most guilty of sinners (1 Tim 1:15).

· At the same time, there are passages in the Bible which make it clear that, at another level, all sins are not equal. Under the Old Covenant the Lord distinguished between intentional and unintentional sins. Sacrificial atonement was only available for the latter (Number 15:22-31).

· This distinction seems to correspond to the distinction between ‘hidden faults’ and ‘willful sins’ (lit. arrogances / presumptions), the latter of which threaten to ‘rule over me’ (Psalm 19:12-13). To be free from these willful sins is to be ‘blameless, innocent of great transgression’ (19:13).

· Hebrews 9:7-9 confirms that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant atoned only for sins committed in ignorance, and so were ‘unable to clear the conscience’ (9:9).

· Atonement for the guilt incurred by intentional sins (‘bloodguilt’) could therefore only be obtained through the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 51:1-19).

· This distinction between sins was not limited to the Old Covenant. In his teaching Jesus also distinguished between various degrees of sin and guilt. Those who sin in ignorance receive lighter punishments. Those who sin knowingly receive heavier punishments (Lk 12:47-48). Unlike the ignorant, those who have heard Jesus’ teaching ‘have no excuse for their sin’ (Jn 15:22; 9:41). Judas’ sin is greater than Pilate’s (Jn 19:11). Greatest of all is the guilt incurred by causing others to sin (Lk 17:1-2).

· The New Testament also distinguishes between sin which leads to death and sin which does not lead to death (1 Jn 5:16-17). This seems to correspond to the difference between ‘committing sin’ and ‘having sin’ (1 Jn 1:8; 3:8-9). Not even God’s children are without sin. But those who ‘commit’ sin and continue in it are ‘of the devil.’

· Saint Paul distinguishes between what he wants to do and what he actually does (Rom 7:15-20). The state of the person who desires or intends to do what is right stands in marked contrast to the state of the person who does not struggle against sin but lets its rule over him or take control (Rom 6:12). Repentance manifests itself in the will: in the repression of sinful desire, and the yearning to be delivered from such sins. For such a person ‘there is no condemnation’. But those who ‘live according to the sinful nature’, that is, those who habitually give in to the cravings of sinful desire and grant them free rein and ruling power over their conscience, ‘will die’ (Rom 8:13).

· Mention must be made of the so-called ‘unforgivable sin.’ Jesus draws the well-known distinction between those who sin against the Son of Man and those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit. While the many sins of the former are forgivable, the single sin of the latter is not, since they who commit it have thereby become ‘guilty of an eternal sin’ (Mk 3:29; cf. Matt 12:31; Lk 12:10).

· Two important passages in Hebrews help us understand what Jesus meant here (6:4-6; 10:26-31). Both describe conditions in which saving repentance for sin becomes ‘impossible’. The first identifies which people are in danger of this kind of fall, namely ‘those who have been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God.’ The more spiritually mature a person is, the more he or she has progressed in knowledge of divine things, the greater his or her culpability in the case of apostasy. The second identifies the conditions under which such a fall become irrevocably damning, namely knowing, continuous and ‘deliberate’ rejection or misuse of the holy means of grace. These passages tell us, then, that the ‘unforgivable’ sin, the sin against the Holy Spirit, is nothing other than a person’s willful and final rejection of forgiveness.

Conclusion

The biblical passages summarised clearly differentiate between the relative gravity of actual sins and between their variable effects. Just as there are gradations in importance in the divine commands, so there are corresponding gradations in the gravity of sin, guilt and punishment. Some faults are tolerated by the divine friendship; others destroy it at once. All seems to depend on (a) the relative seriousness of the law broken, (b) the level of conscious consent at the time the law was broken, and (c) the relative accountability of the person in matters of divine truth.

It follows that two main errors are to be avoided. The first is to minimise the damnable and dangerous character of any sin, no matter what its particular effects in this or that individual. While mortal sins are typically associated with idolatry (which includes apostasy, sacrilege and false teaching), rebellion, murder, and sexual immorality, so-called ‘venial’ sins, when habitually excused and given no serious thought, can quickly become mortal in effect. No one can persist in acting against his or her conscience without grieving the Holy Spirit and destroying faith.

The second error is to over-rate those sins which persist in us on account of our weakness, a result of the lingering effects in this life of our old sinful nature. Despite our firmest resolves and best intentions, we repeatedly fall into sins, some of which we are ignorant, others which we realise right away. We speak out of turn. We fail our neighbour. We omit to do what we ought. Our impulses momentarily get the better of us. We waver continually on the fine line between experiencing temptation and falling for it.

Of course, ‘our firmest resolves and best intentions’ remain vital, God-given fruits of faith, and should not be trivialised or abandoned. But neither should these repeated failings cause the baptised to believe they have fallen into God’s disfavour. It is true: daily we merit his disfavour. But how much more has Christ merited his favour! And so for the sake of his great love for us in Christ, God does not hold such sins against his dear penitent children, nor because of them does he reject their plea for forgiveness. ‘For he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust’ (Ps 103:14).