Christian Views On Sin

This article covers Christian views on Sin.

The doctrine of sin is central to Christianity since its basic message is about redemption in Christ. Christian hamartiology describes sin as an act of offence against God by despising his persons and Christian biblical law, and by injuring others. In Christian views, it is an evil human act, which violates the rational nature of man as well as God’s nature and his eternal law. According to the classical definition of St. Augustine of Hippo sin is “a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God.”

Among some scholars, sin is understood mostly as legal infraction or contract violation of non-binding philosophical framework  and perspectives of Christian ethics, and so salvation tends to be viewed in legal terms.

Other Christian scholars understand sin to be fundamentally relational—a loss of love for the Christian God and an elevation of self-love (“concupiscence”, in this sense), as was later propounded by Augustine in his debate with the Pelagians. As with the legal definition of sin, this definition also affects the understanding of Christian grace and salvation, which are thus viewed in relational terms.

Sin in the Bible

Old Testament

The first reference to “sin” as a noun is of “sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it” waiting to be mastered by Cain,[Gen 4:7][cf. 1 Pet 5:8] a form of literary theriomorphism. The first use of the verb is God appears to Abimelech “in the dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her.”” in Genesis 20:3. Isaiah announced the consequences: “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear. For your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt. Your lips have spoken falsely, and your tongue mutters wicked things” — a separation between God and man, and unrequited worshipping.[Isaiah 59:2–3]

Original sin

Main article: Original sin

Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity’s state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam’s rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a “sin nature”, to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.

The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine, seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalm 51:5. Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that humanity shares in Adam’s sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine’s formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom. The Jansenist movement, which the Catholic Church declared to be heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.

Roman Catholic views

Thomas Aquinas

The way Thomas Aquinas viewed sin and vices was radically different from later approaches, especially that of 17th-century moral theology. He presented sin and vices as contraries of virtues. He discusses the subject in his Summa Theologica part Ia–IIae (Prima secundae) qq. 71–89.

In one of his definitions of sin Thomas quotes Augustine of Hippo’s description of sin as “a thought, words and deed against the Eternal Law.”‘

Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God’s reason, so to speak (quasi ratio Dei). Accordingly Augustine includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says, word, deed, or desire; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, contrary to the eternal law. (STh I–II q.71 a.6)

To recognise the possibilities of sin in man is equal to acknowledge his human nature, his control and mastery of his own actions. Sin is a motion to the goal, it is judged by the object to which it is directed. The field of sin is the same as the field of virtue. There are three major fields: relationship with God, with oneself and with the neighbour. Thomas distinguished between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sin is when a person has irreparably destroyed the very principle of his/her order to the goal of life. Venial sin is when he/she has acted in a certain disordered way without destructing that principle:

Consequently it is a mortal sin generically, whether it be contrary to the love of God, e.g. blasphemy, perjury, and the like, or against the love of one’s neighbour, e.g. murder, adultery, and such like: wherefore such sins are mortal by reason of their genus. Sometimes, however, the sinner’s will is directed to a thing containing a certain inordinateness, but which is not contrary to the love of God and one’s neighbour, e.g. an idle word, excessive laughter, and so forth: and such sins are venial by reason of their genus. (STh I–II q.72 a.5)

According to Aquinas the gravity of sin depends also on some disposition of the agent (cf. STh I–II q. 18, aa. 4, 6). Sin, venial by reason of its object, may become mortal. It happens when person fixes his/her ultimate happiness, the last end of his/her life (Lat. finis ultimus) in the object of that venial sin. When venial sin is used as a way to provoke mortal sin it becomes mortal as well, e.g. when someone uses empty conversation or a chat to seduce someone to commit adultery. Also sin, mortal by reason of its object, may become venial because of the agent’s disposition when his/her evil act does not have full moral capacity, i.e. is not deliberated by reason. That may happen for instance when sudden movements of unbelief arise in the mind. (Cf. STh I–II q.72 a.5).

The difference and gravity of sins may be discerned on the grounds of spirit and flesh, even mortal sins may differ in gravity. Carnal sins like lust, adultery or fornication, gluttony and avarice, because the person who commits them is inordinately directed towards material goods that are a serious matter, are mortal sins. They may cause much shame and infamy. But spiritual sins like blaspheming of God or apostasy are, according to Thomas, still greater evil, as they have more of the aversion from God. They are directed against a greater object. The formal, essential element of sin is more at the centre in them. (cf. STh I–II q.72 a.2)

According to another formulation of the concept of sin in the Summa, at the heart of sin is “the turning away from the immutable good”, i.e. God, and “inordinate turning to mutable good”, i.e. creatures. (STh I–IIae q.87 a.4) This cannot be understood as if in the concrete sinful deed the sinner commits two separate and independent acts. Both aversio and conversio constitute one single guilty action. At the root of the inordinate turning to the creatures is self-love which expresses itself in disordered desire (cupiditas) and rebellion towards God (superbia).

Speaking about sloth (Lat. acedia) Thomas points out that every deed which “by its very nature is contrary to charity is a mortal sin”. An effect of such deed is the destruction of “spiritual life which is the effect of charity, whereby God dwells in us.” Sin of a mortal character is always committed with the consent of reason: “Because the consummation of sin is in the consent of reason”‘. (cf. STh II–IIae q.35 a.3) Venial and mortal sins can be compared to sickness and death. While venial sin impairs full healthy activity of a person, mortal sin destroys the principle of spiritual life in him/her.

Catechism

Main article: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Roman Catholic doctrine distinguishes between personal sin (also sometimes called “actual sin”) and original sin. Personal sins are either mortal or venial.

Mortal sins are sins of grave (serious) matter, where the sinner performs the act with full knowledge and deliberate consent. (cf. CCC 1857)

The act of committing a mortal sin destroys charity, i. e. the grace in the heart of a Christian; it is in itself a rejection of God (CCC1855). If left un-reconciled, mortal sins may lead to eternal separation from God, traditionally called damnation.

Venial sins are sins which do not meet the conditions for mortal sins. The act of committing a venial sin does not cut off the sinner from God’s grace, as the sinner has not rejected God. However, venial sins do injure the relationship between the sinner and God, and as such, must be reconciled to God, either through the Sacrament of Reconciliation or receiving the Eucharist (after proper contrition fulfilled).

Both mortal and venial sins have a dual nature of punishment. They incur both guilt for the sin, yielding eternal punishment, and temporal punishment for the sin. Reconciliation is an act of God’s mercy, and addresses the guilt and eternal punishment for sin. Purgatory and indulgences address the temporal punishment for sin, and exercise of God’s justice.

Roman Catholic doctrine also sees sin as being twofold: Sin is, at once, any evil or immoral action which infracts God’s law and the inevitable consequences, the state of being that comes about by committing the sinful action. Sin can and does alienate a person both from God and the community. Hence, the Catholic Church’s insistence on reconciliation with both God and the Church itself.

The Roman Catholic view of sin has recently expanded. Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, Regent of the Catholic Apostolic Penitentiary, has said that “known sins increasingly manifest themselves as behavior that damages society as a whole,” including, for example:

• “certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature, through genetic manipulations [or experiments],”
• “drug [abuse], which weakens the mind and obscures intelligence,”
• “environmental pollution,”
• “abortion and pedophilia,” and
• the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor, which “cause an unbearable social injustice” (accumulating excessive wealth, inflicting poverty). The revision was aimed at encouraging confession or the Sacrament of Penance.

Mortal sins, which are any severe and intentional actions that directly disobey God, are often confused with the seven deadly sins, which are pride, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust. They are not, however, the same. The seven deadly sins are called “deadly” because they might lead another to commit other sins. Some forms of the seven deadly sins (i.e. debilitating one’s health because of their love of food) can constitute as grave matter, while others may just be venal (i.e. over-eating).

Another group of four or five sins distinguished by the Church are the sins that cry to heaven: murder, sodomy, (oppression of a people,) oppression of the weak and defrauding the laborer.

See also: Seven deadly sins

Protestant views

Many Protestants of a Calvinist orientation teach that, due to original sin, humanity has lost any and all capacity to move towards reconciliation with God (Romans 3:23;6:23; Ephesians 2:1–3); in fact, this inborn sin turns humans away from God and towards themselves and their own desires (Isaiah 53:6a). Thus, humans may be brought back into a relationship with God only by way of God’s rescuing the sinner from his/her hopeless condition (Galatians 5:17–21; Ephesians 2:4–10) through Jesus’ substitutionary atonement (Romans 5:6–8; Colossians 2:13–15; 1 Timothy 2:5–6). According to traditional Reformed theology and classical Lutheranism, Salvation is sola fide (by faith alone); sola gratia (by grace alone); and is begun and completed by God alone through Jesus (Ephesians 2:8,9). This understanding of original sin (Romans 5:12–19), is most closely associated with Calvinist doctrine (see total depravity) and Lutheranism. Calvinism allows for the relative or nominal “goodness” of humanity through God’s common grace upon both those predestined to salvation and those predestined to damnation, upon the regenerate and the unregenerate. Methodist Arminian theology adapts the concept by stating that humans, entirely sinful and totally depraved, can only “do good” through God’s prevenient grace.

This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic teaching that while sin has tarnished the original goodness of humanity prior to the Fall, it has not entirely extinguished that goodness, or at least the potential for goodness, allowing humans to reach towards God to share in the Redemption which Jesus Christ won for them. Some Protestants and Orthodox Christians hold similar views.

There is dispute about where sin originated. Some who interpret the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 as a symbol for Satan believe sin originated when Satan coveted the position that rightfully belongs to God. The origin of individual sins is discussed in James 1:14–15 – “¹⁴but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” (NIV)

Defined types of sin

Within some branches of Protestantism, there are several defined types of sin (as in Roman Catholicism):

• Original sin—Most denominations of Christianity interpret the Garden of Eden account in Genesis in terms of the fall of man. Adam and Eve’s disobedience was the first sin man ever committed, and their original sin (or the effects of the sin) is passed on to their descendants (or has become a part of their environment). See also: total depravity.
• Concupiscence
• Venial sin
• Greed
• Lust
• Pride
• Mortal sin
• Eternal sin—Commonly called the Unforgivable sin (mentioned in Matthew 12:31), this is perhaps the most controversial sin, whereby someone has become an apostate, forever denying themselves a life of faith and experience of salvation; the precise nature of this sin is often disputed.

Eastern Christian views

Main article: Eastern Orthodox View of Sin

The (Chalcedonian) Eastern Orthodox as well as the (non-Chalcedonian) Oriental Orthodox use “sin” both to refer to humanity’s fallen condition and to refer to individual sinful acts. In many ways the Orthodox Christian view of sin is similar to the Jewish, although neither form of Orthodoxy makes formal distinctions among “grades” of sins.

The Eastern Catholic Churches, which derive their theology and spirituality from same sources as the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, tend not to adhere to the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin taught by the Latin Church. Like the Orthodox Churches, however, the Eastern Catholic Churches do make a distinction between sins that are serious enough to bar one from Holy Communion (and must be confessed before receiving once again) and those which are not sufficiently serious to do so. In this respect, the Eastern Tradition is similar to the Western, but the Eastern Churches do not consider death in such a state to automatically mean damnation to “hell.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that sin is inherited, like a disease, and has been passed on from generation to generation of humans, beginning with Adam and Eve, whom Witnesses believe are real historical characters. They believe that it began with the Devil, and then with humans wanting to decide for themselves what was “Good and Bad.” They believe that at that very moment they lost perfection and began to die. Jehovah’s Witnesses consider human beings to be souls, and so when a human dies due to sin, they believe that his soul dies as well. They believe that Jesus is the only human ever to have lived and died sinless.

Atonement

Main article: Atonement in Christianity

In Christianity, it is generally understood that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice that relieves believers of the burden of their sins. However, the actual meaning of this precept is very widely debated. The traditional teaching of some churches traces this idea of atonement to blood sacrifices in the ancient Hebraic faith.

Christian theologians have presented different interpretations of atonement:

• Origen taught that the death of Christ was a ransom paid to Satan in satisfaction of his claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. This was opposed by theologians such as St. Gregory Nazianzen, who maintained that this would have made Satan a power equal to God.
• Irenaeus of Lyons taught that Christ recapitulated in himself all the stages of life of sinful man, and that his perfect obedience substituted for Adam’s disobedience.
• Athanasius of Alexandria taught that Christ came to overcome death and corruption, and to remake humanity in God’s image again.
• Augustine of Hippo said that sin was not a created thing at all, but was “privatio boni”, a “taking away of good”.
• Anselm of Canterbury taught that Christ’s death satisfied God’s offended sense of justice over the sins of humanity. God rewarded Christ’s obedience, which built up a storehouse of merit and a treasury of grace that believers could share by their faith in Christ. This view is known as the satisfaction theory of atonement, the merit theory, or sometimes the commercial theory. Anselm’s teaching is contained in his treatise Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Human). Anselm’s ideas were later expanded utilizing Aristotelian philosophy into a grand theological system by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, particularly in his Summa Theologica, which although initially inciting controversy eventually became official Roman Catholic doctrine.
• Pierre Abélard developed the view that Christ’s Passion was God suffering with his creatures in order to show the greatness of his love for them, and the realization of this love in turn leads to repentance. It is often known as the moral influence theory of atonement and became central to more liberal strands of Christian theology.
• Martin Luther and John Calvin, leaders of the Protestant Reformation, owed much to Anselm’s theory and taught that Christ, the only sinless person, was obedient to take upon himself the penalty for the sins that should have been visited on men and women. This view is a version of substitutionary atonement and is sometimes called the penal substitution view. It is derived from the Roman Catholic satisfaction theory of atonement, although it is not identical to that of Anselm. Calvin additionally advocated a doctrine of limited atonement, which teaches that the atonement extends and applies only to the sins of the eternally predestined elect rather than to the entire human race, whereas Anselm affirmed a general redemption for all humanity and denied that Christ received punishment for sins, although he made satisfaction to God.
• D.L. Moody once said, “If you are under the power of evil, and you want to get under the power of God, cry to Him to bring you over to His service; cry to Him to take you into His army. He will hear you; He will come to you, and, if need be, He will send a legion of angels to help you to fight your way up to heaven. God will take you by the right hand and lead you through this wilderness, over death, and take you right into His kingdom. That’s what the Son of Man came to do. He has never deceived us; just say here; “Christ is my deliverer.””
• Arminianism has traditionally taught what is known as the governmental theory of atonement. Drawing primarily from the works of Jacobus Arminius and especially Hugo Grotius, the governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. Unlike the traditional Reformed perspective, this view states that Christ was not punished by God the Father in the place of sinners, for true forgiveness would not be possible if humankind’s offenses were already punished. Christ’s suffering was a real and meaningful substitutionary atonement for the punishment humans deserve, but Christ was not punished on behalf of some or all of the human race. This view has prospered in traditional Methodism and all who follow the teachings of John Wesley, and has been detailed by, among others, 19th century Methodist theologian John Miley in his Atonement in Christ and 20th century Church of the Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his Wesleyan-Holiness Theology. Variations of this view have also been espoused by 18th century Puritan Jonathan Edwards and 19th century revival leader Charles Grandison Finney.
• Karl Barth taught that Christ’s death manifested God’s love and his hatred for sin.
• Barbara Reid, a dissenting Roman Catholic feminist and Dominican nun, argues that commonly conceived atonement theologies are harmful, especially to women and other oppressed minorities. Other liberal and radical theologian shave also challenged traditional views of atonement. (see collective salvation)
• Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science movement, taught that atonement exemplifies our underlying spiritual unity with God, whereby we reflect divine Love (God): Christ’s atonement reconciles man to God, not God to man.

Adapted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia