Mortal and Venial Sin: A Lutheran Distinction?

Introduction

Is the distinction between mortal and venial sin biblical, or is it an invention of the Roman church? Is it an essential and salutary distinction that we should be recovering and propounding in our teaching and pastoral work, or is it one destined inexorably to lead to hopeless confusion and misunderstanding, or, even worse, carnal security and despair?

Supplying the answer to these questions would be simple, if Scripture used the Latin terms ‘mortal’ and ‘venial’ to describe sin. But the Bible uses over twenty different words for sin, and qualifies them further with a host of phrases. Translated into English variously as sin, transgression, iniquity, guilt, offence, rebellion, lawlessness, ungodliness, misdeed, wickedness and so on, each word in the original possesses nuances and shades of meaning peculiar to itself, in addition to expressing distinct meanings depending on its context and use. So, for example, the basic meaning of the Hebrew verb hatta’ is ‘to miss the mark’. In this sense it is used of the left-handed Benjamite soldiers who could sling a stone ‘and not miss’ (Judges 20:16). In relation to God however it indicates grave moral offence, as in Joshua 7:11, where it is paired with ‘abar, meaning ‘to cross over’ or ‘to violate’: ‘Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant.’ Yet a third meaning for hatta’ is ‘to bring a sin offering’ or ‘to make compensation’. So the noun hatta’th can mean either ‘sin’ or ‘sin offering’ (see Ex 29:36; Lev 4:1-4).

Given the wide range of biblical terminology with respect to what in English is only a little word, it is essential that we study the various uses well in order to be able to draw our teaching from Scripture accurately. Nevertheless, it is not my aim here to spend a great deal of time studying terminology. It is rather to investigate whether or not Scripture allows us to make a distinction between two kinds of sin, commonly known as ‘mortal’ sin and ‘venial’ sin, and, if it does, to investigate its pastoral application.[1]

Mortal and Venial Sin in Lutheran Teaching

The distinction between mortal and venial sin is not alien to classic confessional Lutheranism. The esteemed Lutheran dogmatician David Hollaz (1648-1713) summarised church teaching on the question in the following terms:

A mortal sin precipitates the sinner into a state of wrath, death, and condemnation, so that, if he should die in this state, and without repentance, he would be eternally condemned; but a venial sin, because it has pardon as an inseparable attendant, can consist with the grace of God and saving faith.[2]

It was the Missouri Synod leader C. F. W. Walther who further argued that not only was such a distinction proper and necessary, but that ‘a person failing to make this distinction does not rightly divide Law and Gospel.’[3] In other words, Walther considered the distinction integral to faithful evangelical preaching. The great Martin Chemnitz listed three reasons for ‘retaining and earnestly inculcating’ the distinction. First, that we may learn to acknowledge and earnestly avoid mortal sins. Second, that if we are caught in such sins, we may not obstinately persevere and continue in them. And third, that we try the more to restrain and control the sin that dwells in us, lest it become mortal.[4]

From early on in Lutheran theology the distinction was referred to by the scholastic terms ‘ruling and non-ruling sin’ (peccati regnantis et non regnantis),[5] which in turn echo the words of St Paul, ‘Do not let not sin rule (regnet) in your mortal body’ (Rom 6:12). The Lutheran Confessions presuppose the distinction when they differentiate between those sins with which faith and the Holy Spirit cannot co-exist, and sins of weakness and concupiscence which remain in the flesh of the baptised believer.[6] In his Loci Communes Melanchthon habitually calls the former ‘sins against conscience’, that is, the regenerate person’s conscious consent to his sinful fleshly impulses and his voluntary resistance of the Holy Spirit.[7] The Formula of Concord characterises them in terms of ‘a wicked intention to continue and abide in sin.’[8] Sins of weakness on the other hand are those myriad sins of omission and commission which, according to Luther’s explanation of the Fifth Petition, God daily forgives the Christian ‘even without our asking, or before we ask.’[9]

This background makes it clear that here we are not overly concerned about terminology per se, but the actual substance of the distinction: whether or not there are sins that lead to eternal death (and so may be deemed ‘mortal’) and sins which, for one reason or another, do not (and so may be deemed ‘venial’). At this point we shall turn to a number of Bible passages where some kind of distinction between sins, corresponding to the kind of distinction just outlined, may be observed.

Biblical Teaching on Distinction between Sins

The first is in Numbers 15:22-31. Here we read about the appropriate offerings to be made for those who ‘sin unintentionally’ on the one hand, and those who ‘sin defiantly’ on the other. The former phrase translates the Hebrew shagag, meaning ‘to sin inadvertently’ or ‘to go astray’. Such sins, whether committed by a native Israelite or a resident alien, may be atoned for and their guilt forgiven (15:22-29). The latter phrase translates the Hebrew ’asah beyad ramah, meaning literally ‘to act with a high hand’. Such sins, whether committed by a native Israelite or a resident alien, are tantamount to blasphemy and result in total exclusion from God’s people and the full retention of guilt (15:30-31). (A similar distinction seems to be expressed in Psalm 19:12-13 where David prays to be forgiven of his ‘hidden faults’ on the one hand and delivered from ‘willful sins’, which threaten to ‘rule’ over him, on the other.) In such cases no offering or atonement is prescribed. Traditional exegesis takes the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, reported in Numbers 16, as a vivid example of such unrepented blasphemy and its punishment.

Still more apposite are the repeated distinctions our Lord himself makes in the Gospels as to the varying gravity of different sins and their effects. So he distinguishes between the lighter punishment of the servant who does not know his master’s will and the heavier punishment of the servant who does (Lk 12:47-48). Again, Jesus distinguishes between ‘the blind’ (that is, those who confess the blindness of sin), who are not guilty of sin, and those who claim they can ‘see’ and so remain guilty of sin (Jn 9:41; cf. Matt 11:22). By refusing to believe in him, such people will eventually ‘die in their sins’ (Jn 8:24). Through his betrayal and willful apostasy, Judas became ‘guilty of a greater sin’ than Pilate, who in ignorance succumbed to pressure to have Jesus put to death (Jn 19:11). In giving occasion for Jesus’ illegal prosecution and death, Judas is not unlike the person for whom, having caused others to fall away, drowning presents a preferable punishment (Lk 17:1-2). And finally, 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).[10]

What about the other Apostolic writings? Without pursuing a comprehensive examination, which would have to include discussion of the difficult texts in Hebrews (6:4-6; 10:26-31), we may refer first of all to what appears to be an important distinction in St John between ‘having’ (echein) sin and ‘committing’ (poiein) sin. The believer in Christ ‘has’ sin. To claim otherwise is to deceive oneself (1 Jn 1:8). However he does not ‘commit’ sin (1 Jn 3:9), that is, in so far as he remains ‘born of God’. Whoever ‘commits’ sin is ‘of the devil’ (1 Jn 3:8). Implied in the combination poiein hamartian is the notion of a deliberate action, a disposed mindset. On these verses Luther comments:

Nothing is easier than sinning. But to be born of God and to sin are incompatible. While the birth remains, and so long as the seed of God abides in a person who has been born again, he cannot sin. He can, of course, lose his birth and commit sin; but so long as the seed of God is in us, it does not permit that sin to be with it…. Sin incites, murmurs, and desires to rule. But do not let it rule.[11]

Another important passage for consideration is of course 1 John 5:16-17, in which there is distinguished sin that ‘leads to death’ (pros thanaton), and sin that ‘does not lead to death’ (ou pros thanaton).[12] Luther regards the ‘sin unto death’ spoken of here primarily as heresy - the stubborn and persistent rejection of the truth, or else impenitence to the end. ‘[T]his sin, because it is defended after it has been sufficiently revealed and known, is mortal; for it resists the grace of God, the means of salvation, and the remission of sins.’[13] Non-mortal sin, on the other hand, includes sins of ignorance or weakness on the part of the Christian. Citing Romans 7:25 about the conflict between the mind that serves the law of God and the flesh that serves the law of sin, Luther comments further, ‘A Christian is divided into two parts. At times a person is overtaken when that birth [of God] is not sustained on the basis of the Word of God and the flesh prevails, so that he does what he would not do in other circumstances.’[14] Such sins, says Luther, are venial: while they are truly sinful, they do not result in loss of faith and condemnation.

Turning to St Paul’s letter to the Romans, we recognise a similar distinction at work. The Apostle recognises his flesh as the ongoing locus for original sin, even after baptism and conversion (Rom 7:18). Such sin desires what is contrary to the ‘inner man’ (Rom 7:22). To the extent that this conflict actually takes place, with the inner man wanting to do what is right and not wanting to do what is wrong, sin is present but does not ‘rule’. In other words, inhering concupiscence is indeed sin, but not reigning sin – which is what it would become if its impulses were followed and fulfilled (Rom 6:12). Thus it does not damn the believer who ‘according to his inner man’ resists and ‘hates’ (Rom 7:15) its impulses, for ‘there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 8:1). In itself such sin is certainly worthy of eternal condemnation, since it actively opposes God and is hostile to him (Rom 8:7). Yet it does not lead to death because it is not imputed to the believer on account of Christ. It is not the case, as Chemnitz quotes Augustine, that God condemns only some sins and justifies or excuses others. He hates them all. But in the unregenerate he hates sin in such a way that he also condemns the person, whereas in the regenerate he hates sin as a doctor hates a sickness, endeavouring to expel it from the patient unwillingly afflicted by it.[15]

The Pastoral Application of the Distinction

Summarising the biblical material, it is clear that God in his word differentiates between the relative gravity of actual sins in general, as well as between their effects in various subjects. There are gradations in importance in the divine commands (Matt 23:23), with corresponding gradations in the gravity of sin, guilt and punishment.[16] This data must be set alongside the clear biblical doctrine that to break one commandment is to become guilty of breaking them all (Jam 2:10-11), that in God’s sight all people have sinned without excuse (Rom 1:20; 3:23), and that the due penalty of all sin is spiritual and eternal death (Rom 6:23).

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.[17] While mortal sins are typically associated with idolatry (including 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. Köberle correctly speaks of the ‘fettering’ or ‘mastering’ power of sin. Of course, not every actual sin has ‘an equal power in slaving our moral intentions, in dulling and confusing our ability to understand and perceive.’[18] Yet as Melanchthon asserts,

The idea that some people have that in going against conscience the elect do not drive out the Holy Spirit is a manifest error that must be condemned…. Adam and Eve were elect, and yet they actually lost the Holy Spirit in the Fall…. And St Paul gives us this distinction in Rom. 8:13, ‘If you live according to the flesh you will die.’[19]

Indeed, why else would we cry out so earnestly with the psalmist, ‘Take not your Holy Spirit from me’ (Ps 51:11), if it were not in fact a possibility? Why else would we pray, ‘Order my steps…. Let no sin have dominion over me’ (Ps 119:133), if there were no danger? All actual sins in the unregenerate are mortal. But the regenerate are also capable of falling into mortal sin, that is, capable of ‘letting sin rule in their mortal body’, and so expelling faith and the Holy Spirit. Such persons need to be converted again. Luther confirms as much when he writes in the Smalcald Articles, ‘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…. If sin does what it wishes, faith and the Holy Spirit are not present.’[20]

Related to this error is the idea that certain actual sins are venial or pardonable in themselves and therefore do not deserve eternal, but only temporal punishments.[21] Referring to this current in Lutheran circles Walther lamented that ‘[i]t happens only too often that preachers, when speaking of the distinction between venial and mortal sins, create the impression that to Christians venial sins are matters over which they need not worry.’[22] In response he quotes from Thesis 76 of Luther’s 1518 ‘Explanations of the 95 Theses’:

Here I should have expatiated on venial sin, which is lightly regarded nowadays, as if it were not a sin at all, to the great harm of many people, I fear, who are securely snoring away in their sins and are not aware that they are committing gross sins…. I want to state briefly: Any person who is not in constant fear of being full of mortal sins and does not act accordingly, will scarcely be saved…. Where this fear is lacking, we trust not so much in the mercy of God as in our own conscience and in the fact that we are not conscious of having committed any gross sins. Such people will meet with a fearful judgement.[23]

Having said this, however, we must immediately press on to state the second error, one which Walther discerned as the virtual opposite of the first. It is the error of describing the universal corruption of humankind ‘in such a manner as to create the impression that even true believers are still under the spell of ruling sins and are sinning purposely.’[24] Here we come to the very evangelical nub of the distinction between mortal and venial sin, one which any pastor with even a little experience in hearing private confession will immediately recognise as vital and salutary. Here the pastor will be alert to the damning despair suffered by certain souls with scrupulous and sensitive consciences who fear that their manifold sins of weakness have separated them utterly from the light of God’s gracious favour. Under such crisis of conscience such persons are in danger of losing the Spirit-given confidence (parresia) that alone enables them to cry out to God for help. The key here is not to minimise sin or to ameliorate any sense of guilt, whether real or imagined, but to help persons afflicted this way to separate sin from what is not sin, discern its relative gravity (was it done in ignorance, or with knowing consent? was it an thoughtless omission of some duty, or a determined act of evasion? and so forth), and, following confession, apply to the penitent the word of Christ’s all-embracing forgiveness. In such cases it may be less important to determine precisely what a person’s sins are (who can discern all his errors?) than to learn what he thinks of them, how he regards them, whether he admits them or excuses them, how they have impacted upon his conscience and the lives of others.[25] To the person weighed down with dread on account of his sins of weakness, we may well articulate Luther’s words:

When you have wicked thoughts, you should not on this account despair; only be on your guard lest you be taken captive by them…. Wherever faith comes into being, there come a hundred evil thoughts and a hundred temptations more than before. Only see to it that you act the man; do not suffer yourself to be taken captive; continue to resist and to say: I will not, I will not.[26]

Concluding Remarks

It may be useful to close this discussion with some personal comments. I came to learn of and value the distinction between mortal and venial sin through praying the Psalms and my own experience in preaching and in private confession before a pastor. Only subsequently did I formally study it in the books of the Lutheran fathers. Most Lutherans have never heard of it. One or two I know however learned it in Confirmation – not in a form borrowed from Roman Catholicism - but as it has been handed down faithfully from our confessional Lutheran forebears. It is, as is hopefully now apparent, a paradoxical distinction, leading on the one hand to a more conscious and salutary fear of the dangers of carnal security, and on the other to a more joyful and confident trust in the Lord’s faithful morning mercies and his favourable disposition towards his own despite the impoverishment of their devotion, the feebleness of their faith, and the countless sins, known and unknown, which plague them every waking (and sleeping!) hour. If God were to deal with his people as their sins justly deserve, setting them in the light of his presence, who could survive (Ps 90:7-8; 130:3)? How thankful we can be for those promises which urge upon the saints the reality of their blessed state as those ‘whose sins are covered’ (Ps 32:1), and which proclaim loud and clear our Lord’s express will to have compassion on them for Christ’s sake. Yes, this body of death is ‘dust’ and to dust it will return. Who will rescue us from it? Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!

The LORD is compassionate and gracious,

slow to anger and abounding in love.

He will not always accuse,

nor will he harbour his anger forever;

He does not treat us as our sins deserve,

nor repay us according to our iniquities.

For as high as the heavens are above the earth,

so great is his love toward those who fear him;

As far as the east is from the west,

so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

As a father has compassion on his children,

so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him;

For he knows how we are formed,

he remembers that we are dust…. (Ps 103:8-14)

Adam G. Cooper

June 25, Feast of the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession

Geelong, 2004

Back to CLA Topics

---

[1] This study presupposes the essential distinction between sin as a condition and actual sins. An adequate doctrine of sin, as Adolf Köberle rightly states, properly stands behind the doctrine of justification. The doctrine of sins, however, belongs to the treatment of sanctification and the Christian life. See Adolf Köberle, The Quest for Holiness: A Biblical, Historical and Systematic Investigation, trans. John C. Mattes (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1938), 207.

[2] Quoted in Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1899), 254.

[3] The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel: Thirty Nine Evening Lectures, trans. W. H. T. Dau (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1928), 325.

[4] Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion, trans. Luther Poellot (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981), 103.

[5] See Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent: Part I, trans. F. Kramer (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), 346.

[6] See Apol. II.35-36; IV.115, 144; XX.13; SA III.III.43-4; FC Ep. IV.11; FC SD IV.15. The Reformers make it clear that, unlike their Roman opponents, they do not consider these sins of weakness or inhering concupiscence to be ‘neutral’, harmless, or innocent (Apol. IV.42-45). It was the error of various semi-Pelagian medieval theologians to minimise both sin and its penalty.

[7] Loci Communes 1543, trans. J. A. O. Preus (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992), 54. We recall the references in 1 Timothy 4:2 to ‘seared consciences’ and Titus 1:15 to ‘corrupted minds and consciences.’ This stands in contrast with the New Testament’s emphasis on preserving a clear conscience (Acts 23:1; 24:16; 1 Tim 1:19; 3:9; Heb 9:14; 13:18; 1 Pet 3:16, 21).

[8] FC SD IV.15.

[9] LC III.88.

[10] Much speculation has attended the question of the sin against the Holy Spirit. Since it spurns God’s holy gift of grace as something to be rejected as evil, it can surely be nothing other than unrepentance.

[11] LW 30.273. Luther here is citing Romans 6:12.

[12] Raymond Brown summarises traditional and modern exegesis on this pericope in The Epistles of John: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 30, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 612-19.

[13] LW 30.325.

[14] LW 30.326.

[15] Examination of the Council of Trent: Part I, 355.

[16] These distinctions are usefully summarised by Vilmar: ‘The word is worse than the thought, the deed worse than the word.’ Quoted in Köberle, Quest for Holiness, 212. Cf. 1 Cor 6:18; Jam 1:14-15.

[17] ‘Before God every sin, the most trifling as well as the most serious, is a complete rupture of the proper relation of trust and obedience that we owe God, which in every case makes the offender unconditionally guilty.’ Köberle, Quest for Holiness, 207.

[18] Köberle, Quest for Holiness, 207.

[19] Loci Communes, 54. This presents no difficulty if one rightly grasps the nature of true and saving faith. ‘For faith is not this kind of conviction, that it is immaterial before God to remain in sins or desist from sins, to love sins or detest them; true faith likewise does not seek this in Christ, that it dares to indulge in sins and give rein to them securely and freely, without any fear, in the hope of impunity. But the nature and property of true faith is seen and recognized in sincere repentance, namely when the heart acknowledges its sins in such a way that it seriously shudders in acknowledging the wrath of God, and no longer delights in sin, but is seriously and earnestly troubled, lest it fall into danger of eternal damnation.’ Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments, 76. Also Apol. IV.142: ‘The faith of which we are speaking… has its existence in penitence (existit in poenitentia); 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…. [Such faith] cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh, who take pleasure in their lusts and obey them.’

[20] SA III.III.43-4. On the devastating impact of mortal sin on prayer, see Köberle, Quest for Holiness, 222-5.

[21] This is the case in classic Roman Catholic doctrine. Venial sin is classified as different from mortal sin not simply in effect but also, and primarily, in essence.

[22] Law and Gospel, 326.

[23] Law and Gospel, 331. See LW 31.241-2.

[24] Law and Gospel, 318.

[25] ‘The angry thought in God’s sight is on an equality with the act of murder, the lustful glance is as evil as the adultery. But because we know ourselves equally guilty in God’s sight in the commission of every sin it does not follow that the effect of evil thoughts, words and deeds is equally significant for myself or my neighbour in every case….’ Köberle, Quest for Holiness, 210.

[26] Quoted in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics: Volume I (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), 565. Cf. LC III.107-8.