Levels of Sin?

[FaithfulChristianMan]

Your above classification is wrong and you were either taught by an inept teacher or you don't correctly recollect what you were taught.

It must have been the publishing series of educational Catholic books released in the United States in the late 80's, early 90's. I clearly recall the lesson and what I was taught.
However, there is not a clearcut list in the constitution of the Catholic church stating the definitions of venial, mortal sins and the methods of being forgiven for them. It is reasonable that there is variability from country to country (not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying it's not unreasonable to think such things).
Needless to say, I no longer consider myself as a specific Catholic, nor do I claim to be an expert on their laws.

 

[FaithfulChristianMan]

After a quick google search to confirm I wasn't the only one who'd ever heard of "social, venial, and mortal sins" being 3 types, I would like to add that those sins classified as social are also specifically elicited by being in a group and doing them in association with peer pressure.

This may have been something added to Catholic school childrens' curriculum in order to raise awareness of the dangers of accepting the group mentality of their eventual non-Christian peers which could lead them to sin. -- This does not mean that it was a worldwide decree of the definitions of sins, but it is what was taught to Catholic school children in the US between 10-20 years ago.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Thats the problem with many churches. Jesus is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. A sin that was sin 6000 years ago is a sin today. God does not change them, Yet we see for some odd reasons classifications of sin changing all the time by the church. Because someone states "god spoke to them in a revelation and decided this sin is now mortal"

Some times I wonder what people think when they follow men. And not God.

 

[FaithfulChristianMan]

Sometimes I wonder what people think when they follow men and not God.

I agree with you. Some people suggest that for the same reason they had written the old testament through divine guidance- so new prophecies can be written. What can we trust? The variance of these beliefs is the division of churches today. I feel that the nuances that divide us should not separate us from practicing together on our common ground. The strong unquestioning belief in the new testament and work of Jesus Christ as Lord and key to our salvation is shared by all Christians. It is important that we focus our efforts in saving others rather than defining boundaries. My beliefs lead me to the non-denominational status I currently have, supporting all Christian belief- whatever church they may belong to. It is my position that we are all brothers in Christ.

 

[Shwagga]

Alright...

I recently slightly heard a conversation related to levels of sin. One of the speakers was convinced there are levels of sin and the other speaker was convinced they are not.

What do you think?

I want your opinions and I want scriptural evidence for them in order to have a firmer grasp on what I believe to be right.

Thanks

I think they were both correct, on some level. Sin is all equal in the sense of all sin leads to judgment.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

On the flip side, Jesus told Pilate that those who delivered Jesus to Pilate had greater sin.

John 19:11
Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

So, are all sins equal? Yes and no, what do you mean by equal?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think they were both correct, on some level. Sin is all equal in the sense of all sin leads to judgment.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

On the flip side, Jesus told Pilate that those who delivered Jesus to Pilate had greater sin.

John 19:11
Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

So, are all sins equal? Yes and no, what do you mean by equal?

Ahh yes, But who entered into Judas and caused him to deliver Christ to be tried?

 

[Jullianna]

Excellent question, perdonato! I'm late to the party though and it appears that the scriptures I was going to post are already here.

 

[perdonato]

I think they were both correct, on some level. Sin is all equal in the sense of all sin leads to judgment.
http://christianchat.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=416278
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

On the flip side, Jesus told Pilate that those who delivered Jesus to Pilate had greater sin.

John 19:11
Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

So, are all sins equal? Yes and no, what do you mean by equal?

That's a good question and a good point all at once.

Let's define equal with the basic definition from our dear friend Webster: being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.

I'm curious how people have developed their perspectives and what it means to them.

If all sins are/aren't equal, what does it mean in the end?

 

[superdave5221]

That's a good question and a good point all at once.

Let's define equal with the basic definition from our dear friend Webster: being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.

I'm curious how people have developed their perspectives and what it means to them.

If all sins are/aren't equal, what does it mean in the end?

It's really not as simple as that. There is a lot of ways to look at sin, but probably the best way for discernment of differences is to consider the consequences of sin.

Some say that all sin is equal. But this is only true for those who are under the law. For those of us who are saved by the blood of Christ, and whose sins are propitiated before the Father by our High Priest, this is not so.

Once you are saved, then Jesus has taken upon Himself the eternal consequences of sin. Thus, if you believe in "once saved, always saved", then you need not worry any more about the eternal consequences. Even if you believe as I do, that you can still lose your salvation, you must completely turn your back on Jesus, and deny the Holy Spirit, in order to do so.

As such, a greater impact for sin is experienced on a temporal level, therefore in the quality of our lives and our relationship with Christ in the church. This being so, it would be hard to argue that cutting someone off on the highway, or uttering a curse word, is equivalent to adultery. However, we must also consider the effect of our sins as stumbling blocks to the unsaved as well.

Paul recognized that certain sins had greater corrupting influences in our families and church and needed to be dealt with agressively. These sins included drunkeness, covetousness, idolatry, reviling, swindling, and the sexual sins such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. I don't exactly know why Paul was more concerned about these sins than he was others, but I trust his judgment.

I believe, to a greater extent than other sins, that these types of sins tend to divide families and the church, separate us spiritually from Christ, and to retard the churches ability to evangelize the lost. They also hinder our growth in the faith, and the ability of God to use us for his purposes. Paul lists these sins in 1 Corinthians 5 and he considers them great enough to expel those from the church who don't repent of them.

 

[SantoSubito]

It's really not as simple as that. There is a lot of ways to look at sin, but probably the best way for discernment of differences is to consider the consequences of sin.

Some say that all sin is equal. But this is only true for those who are under the law. For those of us who are saved by the blood of Christ, and whose sins are propitiated before the Father by our High Priest, this is not so.

Once you are saved, then Jesus has taken upon Himself the eternal consequences of sin. Thus, if you believe in "once saved, always saved", then you need not worry any more about the eternal consequences. Even if you believe as I do, that you can still lose your salvation, you must completely turn your back on Jesus, and deny the Holy Spirit, in order to do so.

As such, a greater impact for sin is experienced on a temporal level, therefore in the quality of our lives and our relationship with Christ in the church. This being so, it would be hard to argue that cutting someone off on the highway, or uttering a curse word, is equivalent to adultery. However, we must also consider the effect of our sins as stumbling blocks to the unsaved as well.

Paul recognized that certain sins had greater corrupting influences in our families and church and needed to be dealt with agressively. These sins included drunkeness, covetousness, idolatry, reviling, swindling, and the sexual sins such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. I don't exactly know why Paul was more concerned about these sins than he was others, but I trust his judgment.

I believe, to a greater extent than other sins, that these types of sins tend to divide families and the church, separate us spiritually from Christ, and to retard the churches ability to evangelize the lost. They also hinder our growth in the faith, and the ability of God to use us for his purposes. Paul lists these sins in 1 Corinthians 5 and he considers them great enough to expel those from the church who don't repent of them.

Finally a protestant who understands the concept of "temporal punishment." I agree with you wholeheartedly, sir.

 

[Shwagga]

Ahh yes, But who entered into Judas and caused him to deliver Christ to be tried?

Hi,

I suppose you are suggesting we blame Satan for what Judas did. If sin is commit against our will, how can God judge us according to our sins. Either way, I don't believe that changes the reality of "greater sin" or "lesser sin."

Hopefully I am not misunderstanding you, please tell me if I am.

Blessings.

That's a good question and a good point all at once.

Let's define equal with the basic definition from our dear friend Webster: being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.

I'm curious how people have developed their perspectives and what it means to them.

If all sins are/aren't equal, what does it mean in the end?

Hello,

When I said "what do you mean by equal?", I didn't mean the textbook definition of the word. I meant more along the lines of equality in the sense of judgment or equality in the sense of the overall effect of sin? I believe the Bible clearly states that all sin leads to separation from God. But how great the judgment is, in all probability it differs per person. Such as, if someone can have "greater sin" as Jesus told Pilate, then that leads me to believe there is such a thing called "greater judgment" for certain sins. If this can be proven wrong, I have no problem abandoning this belief but I don't have any reason for doing so yet.

If you have not repented and your faith is not in Jesus, then absolutely no matter how big or small the sin is, according to what I believe the Bible teaches, then the consequences is hell. How the judgment works I am not sure of, but being separated from God is the worst thing that could happen, to anyone. But we do not know the fullness of the judgment and how severe it is for everyone who does not believe or do we? That's where I am stuck at on this issue.

Take care.

 

[perdonato]

When I said "what do you mean by equal?", I didn't mean the textbook definition of the word.

I know... just figured I'd provide it anyway

 

[Jullianna]

It's really not as simple as that. There is a lot of ways to look at sin, but probably the best way for discernment of differences is to consider the consequences of sin.

Some say that all sin is equal. But this is only true for those who are under the law. For those of us who are saved by the blood of Christ, and whose sins are propitiated before the Father by our High Priest, this is not so.

Once you are saved, then Jesus has taken upon Himself the eternal consequences of sin. Thus, if you believe in "once saved, always saved", then you need not worry any more about the eternal consequences. Even if you believe as I do, that you can still lose your salvation, you must completely turn your back on Jesus, and deny the Holy Spirit, in order to do so.

As such, a greater impact for sin is experienced on a temporal level, therefore in the quality of our lives and our relationship with Christ in the church. This being so, it would be hard to argue that cutting someone off on the highway, or uttering a curse word, is equivalent to adultery. However, we must also consider the effect of our sins as stumbling blocks to the unsaved as well.

Paul recognized that certain sins had greater corrupting influences in our families and church and needed to be dealt with agressively. These sins included drunkeness, covetousness, idolatry, reviling, swindling, and the sexual sins such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. I don't exactly know why Paul was more concerned about these sins than he was others, but I trust his judgment.

I believe, to a greater extent than other sins, that these types of sins tend to divide families and the church, separate us spiritually from Christ, and to retard the churches ability to evangelize the lost. They also hinder our growth in the faith, and the ability of God to use us for his purposes. Paul lists these sins in 1 Corinthians 5 and he considers them great enough to expel those from the church who don't repent of them.

Excellent answer. Can't add a thing to this.

 

[dewba]

Think of the verse you posted. "father forgive them" That is what a mediator does. When the accuser comes and accuses one of Gods children of not being worthy because of sin. Jesus mediates by saying, Your right, they are not worthy. But I paid the price.

Us asking forgiveness has no bearing. The penalty was paid for by Christ on the cross. If we could be saved by just asking forgiveness (the law) Christ came for nothing.

What are you referring to?
I feel like this will lead to squabbling over words but what is it that I said, exactly, that made you say that?
The Jews?

If anything, my mistake was not including my last line at the very beginning.

1. So the one unforgivable sin is not believing (which INCLUDES not asking for forgiveness).

...as in: believing in God sending his Son, Jesus Christ, to forgive us of our sins, means we are repentant and asking for forgiveness.

I guess my writing skill needs work?

We're on the same page, in my opinion.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

What are you referring to?
I feel like this will lead to squabbling over words but what is it that I said, exactly, that made you say that?
The Jews?

If anything, my mistake was not including my last line at the very beginning.
...as in: believing in God sending his Son, Jesus Christ, to forgive us of our sins, means we are repentant and asking for forgiveness.

I guess my writing skill needs work?

We're on the same page, in my opinion.

I responded because you added (including asking for forgiveness) If i misunderstood you forgive me, Did you mean one time, or every time you sinned. If you meant the second, that is what my post was directed at. Christ mediates for us even when we do not ask forgiveness. was my point.

 

[dewba]

I responded because you added (including asking for forgiveness) If i misunderstood you forgive me, Did you mean one time, or every time you sinned. If you meant the second, that is what my post was directed at. Christ mediates for us even when we do not ask forgiveness. was my point.

believing in Christ is forgiveness was my point.
so yea, essentially, we agree.

thanks for the patience.