Many a Protestant has glossed over 1 John 5:16-18 where it states not to pray for people with a certain sin, that it may be forgiven.
From these verses, Catholics try to claim there is a Biblical basis for differentiating between sins (something the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not do.) Catholic.com states, “These verses cannot be any plainer that there is such a thing as ‘deadly sin’ and ‘sin which is not deadly.’ That is precisely what the Church means by mortal (sin unto death) and venial (sin not unto death) sin.”
However, there are two extremely obvious problems with the Catholic contention which make it honestly surprising that Catholics would even go to these verses to prove their “unbiblical” and “untraditional” view of sin.
The first reason is a short one: “There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this” (1 John 5:16). Yet, Catholics believe that mortal sins can be forgiven through honest confession and penitence. “The priest will begin the Confession with the prayer of the Sign of the Cross,” says a Catholic website. Yet, the Bible specifically says that one should not request for forgiveness for such a sin!
A lot of Catholic theologians should lose their jobs for that shoddy sort of exegesis!
The second reason is also simple, but merits more explanation: “There is a sin…” John has in mind a specific sin and this is how early church fathers, like Augustine, understood the verse. If what Catholicism teaches now was always the historical teaching of the church, how was Augustine unaware of their present exegesis being the singular explanation of the Church?
Augustine writes that, “Concerning which sin (since it is not expressed) many and different notions may be entertained” (A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Chapter 35). This shows that the present Catholic explanation of the verse was not the only one, even if similar ideas are communicated in Cassian’s Conferences 11 Chapter 9 and Ambrose’s On Repentance, Book 1, Chapter 12. Nonetheless, Augustine continues:
I, however, say, that sin is to forsake even unto death the faith which worketh by love. This sin they no longer serve who are not in the first condition, as Adam, free; but are freed by the grace of God through the second Adam, and by that deliverance have that free will which enables them to serve God, not that by which they may be made captive by the devil. From being made free from sin they have become the servants of righteousness, in which they will stand till the end, by the gift to them of perseverance from Him who foreknew them, and predestinated them, and called them according to His purpose, and justified them, and glorified them, since He has even already formed those things that are to come which He promised concerning them.
The former underlined shows Augustine’s explanation. Rejecting faith is the singular sin one cannot ask forgiveness for. This is a Biblically consistent explanation, as we are saved by faith alone and apart from faith cannot be saved from our sin. Furthermore, it fits the passage which identifies a singular sin as the one not to make request for. I underline the latter simply because it gives us encouragement that those of us who have faith in Christ will be given the gift of perseverance to the end.
Augustine elsewhere uses the same exegesis of 1 John 5:16. In his homilies on the letter he says of the verse, “On the other hand, the apostle Paul does not pray for Alexander, and the reason I suppose, is, that this man was a brother, and had sinned ‘unto death,’ i.e. by opposing the brotherhood in a spirit of hatred.” As we can see, the sin onto death is not having faith that works through love.
So, does 1 John 5:16-18 talk about mortal and venial sins? The answer would be no. Is this only a position that an out-there, guy alone in the woods with the Bible, can come up with? No again. Not only the wording of the verse encourages against such an explanation, Augustine appears to be aware of Ambrose’s view and purposely rejects it for a much more sensible one. The only sin onto death is rejecting Jesus Christ, because He is the only way to the Father. Case closed.
Hi Craig,
I wandered over to your website and found this article. I have always found you very reasonable, and I still do. However, I believe there are some things that need to be said that I think will hopefully take you away from your somewhat off putting…..”case closed” at the end. The first issue I would raise is that the article “a” is not in the Greek. The RSV edition translates this verse as “There is sin which is deadly….” It doesn’t say there is “a sin” which is deadly. This can throw a major issue in that I think you would agree needs to be teased out before….case closed. Furthermore, in verse 17 it says “….there is sin which is not deadly.” Plural again. Previously, he says “if anyone sees his brother committing a sin which is not mortal.” This “a sin” in this case leads us to believe there is more than one sin. Perhaps it would have been helpful if you had put the entire verse up in front of your article instead of pieces of it. I in no way am insinuating you did that for a nefarious purpose. Here is the verse in its entirety RSV.
1 John 5:16-17
16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
So your unbiblical statement just got very weak. Next you talk about how the Church teaches mortal sins can be forgiven in confession, and yes we do. The reason that is not unbiblical either is because John is talking about what a believer is to be praying for. He is saying that a believer isn’t supposed to pray for ANOTHER BELIEVER’s mortal sin. (I apologize for the caps, I don’t know how to get underline or something more appropriate). mortal sins can be forgiven in confession, and yes we do. The reason that is not unbiblical either is because John is talking about what a believer is to be praying for. He is saying that a believer isn’t supposed to pray for ANOTHER BELIEVER’s mortal sin. (I apologize for the caps, I don’t know how to get underline or something more appropriate). We know he is speaking of it this way because he says, “if anyone sees his brother”. Therefore, this certainly leaves the possibility of the perpetrator seeking reconciliation for his own sin. I believe this is because If we are praying for a perpetrator, we don’t know what’s in his heart therefore he could still be in a state of unrepentance. So now your snarky, catholic theologian comment looks a little bit silly. As far as Augustine is concerned, you must understand that our understanding of various theological issues was not inherited as a snapshot or all inclusive once Jesus ascended. Many things have been arrived at. The understanding of the trinity is the most obvious. I think that you would agree with that. So yes, St. Augustine may have had a different take than St Ambrose, but the manner apparently wasn’t settled. I need to read Ambrose’s exegesis admittedly.
I am not a Greek scholar, however, I just heard a scholar speak about how Greek does not have articles in the language. Therefore, perhaps this is the issue. I understand that it was up to the translator to decide the context. And since we know that there are many different methods of translating, ie, the vulgate, the direct Greek, and I believe there is one more way, then I think it possible that Augustine had a different translation. Augustine himself says there were many different possibilities, so until it is proven that Augustine had the proper translation of John’s original article, which we don’t know, then I think your article falls very flat. At the worst, you totally and completely missed the mark. At the best, you have shown that the SECOND part of that verse is talking about rejecting the faith, but the first part still says there are mortal sins. It doesn’t say there is only one. The next part COULD (it seems unsettled here’s) specifically talk about another sin which is mortal which one couldn’t pray for. Does that make sense? Either way the current Catholic understanding of sin is not only workable from this verse, but justifiable. Notice Augustine was talking about the latter half of that verse….he never says there aren’t other mortal sins.
1 John 5:16-17
16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
And as far as the allowing confession for mortal sin, you have come no where near to proving its errant with that verse. It never says the perpetrator himself can’t go and ask for forgiveness, only that one shouldn’t pray for another person.
It seems as if you were reading Augustine, which doesn’t contain the whole verse, and then wrote the article.
In Christ
Trogos:
“I wandered over to your website and found this article. I have always found you very reasonable, and I still do. However, I believe there are some things that need to be said that I think will hopefully take you away from your somewhat off putting…..”case closed” at the end.”
I appreciate the amicable tone. The end is only off putting if the conclusion is unjustified. Let’s look at your reply.
“The first issue I would raise is that the article “a” is not in the Greek. The RSV edition translates this verse as “There is sin which is deadly….” It doesn’t say there is “a sin” which is deadly.”
Whenever a layman, like you and me, goes to the Greek we better be really sure that we are making a solid, irrefutable point! Sadly, I think even a basic understanding of Greek grammar undoes your point, well meaning as you may be.
For example, you note that my whole argument hinges upon the Scripture saying there is a specific sin (“a sin”) that we should not make a request for. Because there is no such thing as the “indefinite article” in the Greek then my conclusion (I suppose in your view) only has a 50/50 chance of being right.
There are two problems with this. First, even if there was no indefinite article (“a sin”) and it was correct to infer the definite article (“the sin”), it would not prove the Catholics exegesis, but rather mitigate against it. If there is THE SIN we cannot make request for, we already know that it cannot include a litany of mortal SINS because this would be a plural.
Second, the Greek word for sin is singular. So there is “a sin” is a perfectly justifiable rendering of the Greek.
But let me concede both points to you and say that 1 John 5:16 should read literakky, “If anyone sees his brother committing sin [SINGULAR] not leading to death, he should ask God, who will give life to those who commit this kind of sinnings [PLURAL]. There is a sin [SINGULAR] that leads to death; I am not saying he should ask regarding that.”
The fact that the former sin (which a request can be made for) is referred to in the plural, while the sin which a request cannot be made for is referred to in the singular, shows that that the former sin can be several while the latter sin is specifically one. This was the contention my article made, and it is justified by the literal rendering of the Greek.
Anyhow, this whole detour into the Greek really does not undo the meat and potatoes of the argument. My argument in the article is “the Bible specifically says that one should not request for forgiveness for such a sin,” which instantly invalidates the Catholic practice of specifically making requests to bring about forgiveness for what they consider to be that specific sin. However, confession can make sense if the sin being referred to is not a class of “mortal sins,” but rather is the sin in which Augustine refers to (forsaking faith.)
“So your unbiblical statement just got very weak.”
this is an ironically off putting comment in light of the above, but again, I feel that because you went on this whole Greek detour (which naturally has you confused) you ignored the most obvious point: you cannot make request for a sin leading onto death. The fact is, that you do. So, even if think the Greek justifies the NASB rendering, in the end I will let the Greek scholars argue that point. My other point is so simple, and self evident, that I do not think I need to do much more debating on the topic.
“He is saying that a believer isn’t supposed to pray for ANOTHER BELIEVER’s mortal sin.”
Isn’t a priest, praying for the repentant sinner, a believer? It appears you are reading a whole laity-clerical distinction that is simply not in the text, and then drawing conclusions from this absent distinction.
“We know he is speaking of it this way because he says, “if anyone sees his brother”.”
Again, a Priest is not a brother in Christ? Are you reading absent distinctions between laity and clerics again? I don’t mean to be short, but I cannot understand what you are doing here.
“So now your snarky, catholic theologian comment looks a little bit silly.”
Well, it is humorous on a Reformed apologetics website and justified by the evidence as far as I can see.
“As far as Augustine is concerned, you must understand that our understanding of various theological issues was not inherited as a snapshot or all inclusive once Jesus ascended.”
This is the standard explanation when the Catholic Church now teaches something that the ancient church never taught, or explicitly contradicts something the ancient church taught. I can argue that various theological issues were not hammered out in the first few decades or centuries of Christianity to. In fact, I can argue it took 16 centuries. How can you say I am wrong? You are no longer defending that you actually believe in the unchanged faith of the Apostles in your above argument. This is why it is a self-refuting argument.
I wish I can write more, but I have to nurse an achy shoulder and back.
God bless,
Craig
Please forgive the repetition in the third paragraph. I am not good with handheld devices.
I was mistaken. What is said about there being no articles was apparently misunderstood by me. My understanding is that there are no indefinite articles in Greek. Only definite. Either way this verse establishes venial and mortal sins.
I made a mistake. My understanding is that there is no indefinite article. Only definite. Either way this verse helps lay a biblical foundation for venial and mortal sin.
Blast from the past 🙂
Craig, both you and Trogons have missed the Catholic points in this passage.
1. That there are mortal and venial sins is apparent and clearly stated in the passage. It shows unmerited biased to claim otherwise and besides you never address this aspect.
2. The reason we are not called to pray for mortal sinners is that they are dead in their trespasses and sins and no amount of prayer will help them, the prayers are wasted. Only God can raise people from the dead, not our prayers.
PS. You point about Confession was easily dismissed by Trogons