ealgeone:
My understanding of Sin is in line with the Great theologians of the early Church. Just a few examples.
1) Saint Jerome [347-420AD] in his Writing Against Jovinian [393AD] speaks of the differences between great sin and lighter sin [i.e. mortal and venial] and quotes 1 John 5:16-17 to boot [see Book 2: Chapter 30]
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3009.htm
2) Origen [185-254 AD] some 150 years before Saint Jerome develops a theology on “mortal vs venial sin” in his Homily on Levictus [244AD], most clearly in the discussion on the 7 fold repentance of sins.
http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@texts/0250_origen/04_hom2_on_lev.htm
3) Saint Augustine also defends the notion of Mortal vs. venial sin. For Saint Augustine in a Letter to Saint Jerome {#167, Chapter 2, paragraph 4} written in 415AD states “The Stoics alone dared to argue the equality of all sins, against every experience of the human race. In following that opinion of theirs Jovinian showed himself a Stoic, though he was an Epicurean in grasping after and defending pleasures. You refuted him brilliantly from the Holy Scriptures. In that most delightful and noble dissertation you have made it abundantly plain that it has not been the doctrine of our authors, or rather of the Truth Himself, who has spoken through them, that all sins are equal. I shall now do my utmost in endeavouring, with the help of God, to show how it can be that, although the doctrine of philosophers concerning virtues is true, we are nevertheless not compelled to admit the Stoics’ doctrine that all sins are equal.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.CLXVII.html
Saint Basil The Great in his First Canonical Letter to the Bishop of Iconium goes through all types of sins and how penance/confession is to be administered and when or if those who commit some sins vs. others are to be or can be readmitted to Holy Communion. Some sins, he labels unforgivable, citing the Matthew 12:31-32 passage of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but their is a clear distinction among how some sins are handled vs. others.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.clxxxix.html
So as for my view of sin is not biblical, then if mine is not then all of these Great Fathers of the Church are wrong as well and thus “ealgeone is correct???? Sorry, the converse is true, their view is correct because the Catholic Church’s view is correct, and thus mine is indeed correct.
Finally, in addition to all of the NT passages I cited earlier, Christ own words are kind of interesting when he was standing before Pilate when he states “For this reason, the one who handed me over has the greater sin” [John 19:11].
In closing, perhaps you should re read the NT passages I cited and read how the great theologians of the early Church such as Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, Saint Basil the Great, Origen, etc, understood the scriptures in reference to sin rather than either your own personal interpretation or the interpretation of your local unaffiliated independent protestant church and its pastor.
Even earlier than Saint Jerome,
I appreciate your discussion and the way you approach it. No name calling ,etc. Just a good discussion.
Are there sins with varying consequences to their outcomes? Yes. We would all agree that the consequence of murder is greater than the consequence of a "little white lie" from a human perspective.
However, from God's perspective they are both sins and in committing either one, even if it was only the little white lie, then that person would, apart from faith in Christ not have entrance into Heaven. Romans 6:23...the wages of sin is death.
But we do know that we all sin according to Romans 3:23...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Now the question becomes is what can we do to gain entrance into Heaven?
The only Biblical answer is faith in Christ as noted in John 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18, Colossians 2:13-14. I really like Colossians 2:13-14 "when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL of our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." You just can't get any better than that!
The question of different types of sins, mortal or venial, which if I have the definition of the RCC(http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm ) correct is:
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.
I would say based on this reading that the idea of mortal or venial sins do not line up with the Biblical teaching on sins as Paul writes in Romans....or the NT.
For example, Christ taught that there was no difference between the actual physical act of adultery and the thought of adultery. Both were sin in His eyes.
If we took the idea of mortal sins then we're pretty much are all going to be guilty. Have we always honored our moms and dad? No we haven't.
The idea that we can commit a sin so grievous that it is not covered by the blood of Christ is also not supported by the Bible. I know people will bring up Matthew where Jesus speaks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, but if we look at the context of that verse, the circumstances in which this occurred cannot occur today.
I would say the only sin that cannot be forgiven though, is that of unbelief in Christ. I think we would all agree on that.
So back to the question...can our sins separate us from God?
Jesus didn't think so when He said in John 10:27-28 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.” Paul also wrote in Romans 8:1 “therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” He also went on to declare in Romans 8:38-39 “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
There are many other passages in the NT that talk about the security of the believer.
Good discussion and I hope you're having a good 4th of July.
Ok....I read this from Origen, a couple of times, and I'll be honest...I don't agree with it. He does a lot of comparing the OT with the NT which is ok. But, it seems he is falling back on the OT system of sacrifices and trying to equate those somehow with what the NT church is to do.
It's almost as if he neglected the one time sacrifice of Christ for all of our sins.
I noticed also that he is taking some verses out of context and building ideas around them. This is always very dangerous to do as it often leads to error.
I'm going to try and read the other postings as well.
To conclude, St. James is led to speak thus concerning works of mercy in this passage, in order that he may console those whom the statements immediately foregoing might have greatly alarmed, his purpose being to admonish us how those daily sins from which our life is never free here below may also be expiated by daily remedies; lest any man, becoming guilty of all when he offends in even one point, be brought, by offending in many points (since “in many things we all offend”), to appear before the bar of the Supreme Judge under the enormous amount of guilt which has accumulated by degrees, and find at that tribunal no mercy, because he showed no mercy to others, instead of rather meriting the forgiveness of his own sins, and the enjoyment of the gifts promised in Scripture, by his extending forgiveness and bounty to others.
It sounds like Augustine missed the point of Christ being a one time sacrifice for all of our sins. Colossians 2:13-14 "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
Christ has removed the guilt and the stain of sin from our lives with His sacrifice on the cross.