catholic teaching on justification: part 4
how an understanding of mortal sin affects your belief about justification
It’s been three months since “part 3” was written. Since then I became confirmed in the Catholic Church, got a job, and slowed down my writing. My last two articles were on two of the sacraments I received - and continue to receive - as a Catholic: confession and communion. But let’s now return to the subject which is most personal for me, the Church’s teaching on salvation.
Lord Jesus, I pray my writing continues to unite your people together in our common faith and salvation through Christ our Lord. May you use my small efforts to bridge division and bring to light where there is misunderstand and misrepresentation among your people. Amen.
…
I’ve written six articles on this subject, the first three articlulating and refuting the reformed position, and the last three articles explaining the Catholic position, belaboring points made in the first paragraph of the Catechism’s teaching on justification.1 Now, as we get to the next paragraphs on justification in the Catechism I plan to go faster. This week in particular I will also discuss a misunderstood Catholic doctrine, mortal sin. The way I see it, the Church’s teaching on justification and mortal sin go together like salt and pepper.
On Justification, the Catechism continues…
Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man. Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals. Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.
I want us to notice a few things:
Justification is by grace; it is the initiative of God
Justification is an on-going thing.
Justification is the action of God renewing the inner man by:
purifying his heart from sin
purifying his heart with God’s righteousness, which is the fullness and perfection of divine love.
(through the grace of these two things) man is granted the ability to be obedient to God’s will
I really don’t want to quarrel about words, so let me just say this: Catholics teach that the NT epistles use justification and sanctification interchangably, and that they are two words, mostly saying the same thing. For the Catholic, justification has nothing to do with a one-time legal declaration of innocense, whereby we are rightfully accepted by God, our Judge. It is not about possessing a title of righteous. It is not about an exterior status change, but rather an interior work of grace. And it is not a one-time thing, but we are always being justified. We are always receiving forgiveness of sins, righteousness from God, and grace which changes us from within.
Reformed theology - a theology which has influenced most of mainstream Christianity - insists on separating justification from sanctification. But here’s why I’m convinced we’e quarrelling about words… Listen to what Richard Loveless - a Presbyterian / Reformed theologian, says in his book, Spiritual Dynamics:
“There is a deep connection between our understanding of justification and our experience of sanctification. The conscience cannot accept justification without sanctification. Assurance of justification which penetrates and cleanses our consciousness of guilt is impossible to obtain without in some measure being committed to progress in our spiritual growth. This assurance (of our justification) increases as we move forward in sanctification and weakens or vanishes as we move away from The God of Holiness. When we attempt to claim justification without a clear commitment to sanctification, our conscience becomes outraged, and we usually repress this from our awareness, and the resulting anxiety and insecurity create compulsive egocentric drives, which aggravate the flesh instead of mortifying it. Thus the disease of cheap grace can produce some of the most selfish and contentious people on earth.”
I really feel like he’s saying the same thing as the Catechism: “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.” You cannot have one without the other.
Also, if you’ve forgotten how Catholics and Reformers differ on the word, “righteousness” you can read my article, HERE.
Ok, now - with that in mind - let’s consider what Mortal Sin is, and what it does:
Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation.
Justification gives us charity in our heart // mortal sin destroys it
Justification reconciles man to God // mortal sin turns man away from God
Justification detaches man from sin // mortal sin prefers inferior goods (i.e. sin) to God
Justification is God’s gift of forgiveness and righteousness and is needed at conversion AND after mortal sin
I propose all Christians believe what is stated above - but we are currently stuck in this quarreling about words. Let me lay out a brief biblical argument for mortal sin, then I’ll give some examples, and circle this back around to justification.
A Biblical Argument for Mortal Sin
Let’s begin with a few explicit teachings in the New Testament:
Hebrews 10:26-36, which acted for me as the straw that broke the camel’s back
26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.
Not to keep picking the same fight, but for the reformed theologian, they must read into this passage: “the author is describing someone who was never really saved” - in other words, “the one who deliberately sins was never really a Christian.”
There are several reasons that simply can’t be true. Follow this thought process:
The pastor is urging his people to endure like they once did (v. 32-34). That’s the theme of this text. And IF (yes, that’s a conditional word) they endure with the initiative of God’s grace, they will receive what is promised.
With that context in mind, he gives an example of Israelites who knew the way, yet deliberately set it aside (v. 28). They didn’t endure through trials and received their due curse and consequence.
This makes sense of the most explicit verse in the Bible for mortal sin: “if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins…” this sort of “deliberate sin” seems to be a sin of a different sort, which is why the Catechism differentiates between venial and mortal sins, which I’ll explain in a bit.
I hear the reformed response: “this person isn’t saved! He only has a knowledge of the truth!” To that I say, “keep reading.”
“How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?” (v. 29) This is clearly depicting someone who has been sanctified by the Spirit (of grace). This is clearly depicting someone who God has made a covenant in blood with.
In summary, this passage clearly teaches there is a type of sin that moves a Christian from a state of forgiveness and grace, to one of expectant wrath. Therefore, repent!
And this passage explains why the Catholic Church teaches mortal sin is committed when three conditions must together be met: 1) it is a sin whose object is grave matter and it 2) is also committed with full knowledge and it is done with 3) deliberate consent. (paragraph 1857)
There are other passages which teach mortal sin. We see it presented in the parable of the unforgiving servant. This man was forgiven, truly forgiven, and then he deliberately and gravely sinned by choking out a man who owed him pennies on the dollar. He was then condemned. He was justified, and the love of God was pour out into his heart, and then he turned away from God and chose an inferior good over Him. This action of mortal sin resulted in condemnation.
Elsewhere, we see mortal sin demonstrated in 1 John 3, we see it in the Parable of the Prodigal (younger) Son, and we see it demonstrated in the woman caught in adultery. Jesus knew she would sin again, He was well aware of her depravity. But He gave her a command that she was capable of keeping: “you are forgiven, go and sin (meaning, gravely sin) no more.”
There’s more to say about mortal sin, but read the catechism and familiarize yourself with it. This article isn’t about sin, persay, but how mortal sin and justification are tied together.
An Example of Mortal Sin
It’s not just biblical passages that defend this doctrine. It’s played out in real life. I want to give an extreme example, showing we Christians all believe in mortal sin, and then a smaller, more practical example… Let’s begin with a headline story about a recent pastoral moral failing. I don’t begin here to slam dunk on this man but to make a point. I’m not interested in walking through the actual details of this man’s sin, but I’m interested in the evangelical response to his failing.
Steve Lawson, a reformed author, OnePassion Ministries President, teacher and preacher at Trinity Bible Church (Dallas megachurch), has recently been caught in an inappropriate relationship with a woman 50 years younger than him. This man was a close colleague of well-renowned, John MacArthur, and an avid speaker against sexual sin. Again, this article isn’t about his moral failings and other church leaders who go astray (the Catholic closet is plenty large), but it’s about one’s theology driving how you respond to the news.
Generally speaking, how are reformed and evangelical people responding to him? On an emotional level they are responding with anger, sadness and disgust, but on a theological level, they have to think he has wandered away. I think it’s a perfectly normal response to be praying for his repentance, but without it, I think it’s appropriate to believe (perhaps secretly) he’s fallen from the grace of God. If he repents they ought to welcome him back into the fold (though disciplined from pastoral ministry).
That said, if your theology has been shaped by Martin Luther and the reformers, and if you do your theology consistently, you are left to conclude unless he repents, he’s never been counted among the sheep, since you technically can’t wander so grievously.
To get into the theological nitty-gritty, if you hold to their view of forensic justification - which is this declaration by God of innocence, based on an external righteousness given to you at your moment of saving faith - then you play the Steve Lawson scenario out by waiting to see if his repentance will come, which would demonstrate he had true saving faith and true and complete righteousness all along. Whereas, for the Catholic (and many protestants!), because justification is the gift of Christ’s perfect righteousness, though only given in part, and continually given as one receives grace, then the Lawson situation is an example of mortal sin. We understand him, and the many people like him, as having been a legitimate Christian (and Christian leader) who has grievously sinned and departed from the grace of God. He now “necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation (i.e. repentance / confession / contrition).” If and when he (hopefully) repents, God’s justifying grace will be given to him, receiving complete forgiveness and inner renewal.
Perhaps this is a good place to pause and ask, “why am I belaboring this point?”
Personally, I had a lot on the line when holding to former reformed convictions, namely a job. I made a vow to inform my presbytery when I no longer agreed with the Westminster Confession, and on the subject of losing one’s salvation, and on the subject of justification, I no longer agreed with it.
But also, on a more public level, I believe this Catholic teaching is biblical, makes practical sense, and also changes one’s view of the seriousness of sin.
To pinpoint an example, the intentional neglect of Church is a mortal sin. Say what?! Breathe that in. I’ll explain why… It reveals one’s priorities are disordered. If you choose a football game over attending Church, perhaps you’re trained to think that’s not a big deal, but in reality, you are deliberately “preferring an inferior good to God.”
I remember years ago, I was in charge of community groups at my church. I spent countless hours cooking a nice meal for the leaders meeting / dinner we were having. One of our community group leaders brought fast food with him to the meeting because he said he preferred it to what I cooked up. As the host (and the chef!) I was a bit slighted.
Now, God is giving Himself to us at the Catholic Mass - body, blood, soul and divinity, which is the highest good. To intentionally miss this is a slap in the face to the Host. And the Church, in its theology of mortal sin, is essentially naming it for what it is: it’s revealing something grievous about your heart.
And this is what’s true about all mortal sin - when you have knowledge about what God commands and you deliberately go against it, and when it is a grave sin, then you’ve turned your back on God and as Hebrews says, “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.”
But it’s not so black-and-white. Some sins can be mortal for one person and not for another. Take another more common sin, for example. Let’s consider how the Church understands the sin of using pornography. For one, the wisdom of the Church helps us differentiate between situations. For example, a 15 year old boy and a 40 year old man, are understood differently. These sins are not the same.
The boy has an undeveloped brain, therefore less agency in controlling urges.
The boy has a level of innocense, most likely being introduced in a way that was no fault of his own.
The boy is likely uninformed by the severe grossness and abuse within the pornography industry, i.e. he’s more easily deceived.
In short, though the sin is grave, “unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense.” (p. 1860)
The older man, on the other hand, knows better. It’s a grave sin, there is full knowledge of it’s grossness, and there is complete consent.
I don’t intend to diminish the legitimate struggle older men and women have with pornography. Additionally, God’s mercy is more powerful than anything else. The Catechism states, “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.” But I do think the Church’s teaching is more honest. To keep with this example of grave sin, God’s law demands we love our neighbor as ourself. God’s heart is one of justice. God insists that every man and woman is our brother and sister. When a pastor or denomination belittles a grave sin, it’s deceiving, and misrepresents the heart of God. So we must name truth for what it is. God’s heart is with the woman being used, abused, drugged, and objectified. He always stands with the victim, and in opposition to the oppresor, and those keep that oppression in place. In the case of pornography, naming it as mortal sin is a rebuke to the user. It urges them to get help and repent. Stating sin for what it is has the ability to wake people up from their slumber and be a loud cry to a hardened heart or despairing spirit. God loves the men and women on that screen, and He demands we do as well. It is a serious matter.
I’m sure the question arises, who’s to say what sin is grave?
Well, let’s revisit the Steve Lawson example. Surely everyone knew prior to this news, he sinned, in the general sense. He would have been the first to admit that. But do we react the same if he got angry and yelled at his wife or kids as we would if he cheated on her? Do we act the same way, if he was a glutton versus whether if he was an abusive drunkard?
My point in these comparisons is to show we all intuitively distinguish between sins. The Church just does this formally, taking it’s queue from Scripture and human intuition. The Catechism states, “Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. the distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.” The Church differentiates between sins. Mortal sin is far worse than venial sins (meaning, minor sins), just as cheating on your wife is far worse than losing your temper and yelling at her. Both are sins, but are not judged the same way.
But in the Sermon on the Mount isn’t Jesus equalizing hate with murder? Isn’t He leveling the playing field and saying all sin is the same?
You tell me… if you discovered Steve hated someone, would you fire him from his pastorate? What about if he murdered someone? The Sermon on the Mount is doing something different than equalizing sin. Jesus is actually revealing the intention and goodness of the law. He’s perfecting it. God doesn’t just want you to not murder people, he wants you to love your enemy and not hate them. He doesn’t just want you to not commit adultery, but he wants you to view people with love and not objectification. This is the way of the kingdom. So the Church has simply pointed out things that are a big deal, and what I’m saying is that all humans understand that. In your nature you know some things are a bigger deal than other things.
Tying this back to Justification
The Catholic answer makes sense.2 It’s biblical - in it’s ability to hold togethr a myriad of passages. It’s logical - we all know some sins are more grave than others. It’s experiential - when we commit sins, we feel the absense of God’s love. When it’s a grave sin, it’s the felt reality of God’s hand weighing heavy upon us.
Imagine this scenario… you’re at a restaurant and as you continue to drink your water, the waiter comes and continues to refill the water. If you stop drinking the water, the waiter will stop filling the water. If you get up and leave, you don’t have a drink anymore. You’d have to come back and be seated again.
When we cooperate with God’s grace, we are drinking the water and it’s being refilled. When we are commit a venial sin, it’s like we’ve paused on drinking the water. When we commit a mortal sin, we’ve left the restaurant. God is the “waiter” and He will never kick us out, but we are free to stop cooperating with him, and we are free to leave. And here’s the gold in all of this… we are always free to come back, to receive the justifying grace yet again. To be restored back into the fold. To experience the death of our pride as we turn our face away from our sin, coming confidently to the throne, pleading for mercy yet again for mercy. And it’s there, when sin’s mortality is felt, where we get to experience immortality; the resurrection of new life as we are met by Love. “With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts.”
1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism
Whereas, the WCF doesn’t… The Westminster Confession states this:
“Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone…Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf…God continues to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification; yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.”
I’m simply left to wonder what does that teach? How does it work? If a “justified” Christian has an affair or commits a murder or cheats his employees to gain unjust profit, will God simply be displeased with him? And what if that person doesn’t confess his sins, beg pardon and renew faith?
The math equation simply doesn’t work.
This is an example of being so committed to Luther’s doctrine of justification and the imputed righteousness of Christ, where you simply can’t take the Bible for what it says. It is logically impossible - and biblically wishy-washy - to be 1) totally righteous AND 2) eternally spared of the Father’s justice AND required to do righteous acts, namely confession of sin.