In 1 John 5:16–17, John distinguishes between “sin that leads to death” and “sin that does not lead to death”: >If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (NIV) What are some biblical or practical examples of sins that would fall under the category of “sin that does not lead to death,” and how should Christians approach them in prayer and fellowship?

> No one knows the one-hundredth part of sin that clings to his soul. This quote is [frequently attributed to Calvin](https://www.google.com/search?q=No+one+knows+the+one-hundredth+part+of+sin+that+clings+to+his+soul+calvin) , but I can't find a specific citation or reference. Did Calvin actually say this, or something like it? Or has it been misattributed to him, perhaps as someone else's pithy summary of Calvin's teachings? Can anyone trace the origin of this quote or notion?

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that He may be punished in our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the offended something that he love equally or even more than he hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of human kind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general therms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He is God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why did it needed for Christ sacrifice be in the sense of given His life to suffer and die on the cross, and not just an offering of Himself in this less bloodsheded way? I know that God could save us in any other way for Her is omnipotent, and that He choosed the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I reach another face of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Getsemani He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. Implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how then the Father pleases in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I thought of getting rid of these. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

Whenever we buy something there are many effects, some of which are not good. Some examples include supporting places of work that are rife with immodesty and are an unnecessary near occasion of sin to the people working there, companies supporting sinful behavior, companies doing unethical things, and the government using the tax to fund unjust wars. In these situations we must make use of the principle of double effect. One of the requirements for the action being permissible is that there be a *proportionately grave reason* to do it. I think it's fair to say that nothing other than sustenance and religious activities rises to this level. But since it doesn't, does that mean purchasing anything unnecessary is the mortal sin of scandal (*some word or deed that is itself evil* (funding evil stuff) *or has the appearance of evil* (not caring about funding evil stuff) *and provides an occasion of sin to another* (giving people money for doing evil things))?

Note: I want to preface this by saying I am not a Christian. Everything I write comes from me trying to understand the topic from within my (mis)understanding of the Christian perspective. I am trying to understand if the Seven Capital Vices really is a comprehensive list of the bases of all sin, where all the bases are truly distinct. I can definitely recognize all of the vices as progenitors of sin, and they do seem basic, quite comprehensive, and fairly distinct. But I'd like to see that more logically. The arguments for such a view will differ, given that the topic has been looked at differently by various scholars. Take a look at this table shown in *Glittering Vices* by Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung. | Evagrius (4th c.)\* | Cassian (4th/5th c.)† | Gregory (6th c) | Aquinas (13th c.) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1\. Gluttony | 1\. Gluttony | *Pride = root* | Pride = root | | 2\. Lust | 2\. Lust | 1\. Vainglory | 1\. Vainglory | | 3\. Avarice | 3\. Avarice | 2\. *Envy* | 2\. Envy | | 4\. Sadness | 4\. Wrath‡ | 3\. *Sadness* | 3\. *Sloth* | | 5\. Anger‡ | 5\. Sadness | 4\. Avarice | 4\. Avarice | | 6\. Sloth (Acedia) | 6\. Sloth | 5\. Wrath | 5\. Wrath | | 7\. Vainglory | 7\. Vainglory | 6\. Lust | 6\. Lust | | 8\. Pride | 8\. Pride | 7\. Gluttony | 7\. Gluttony | \* Evagrius did not maintain a consistent order for his list. † Cassian's list is the same as Evagrius's but is ordered from carnal to spiritual. ‡ "Anger" and "wrath" translate the same Greek and Latin terms, which also refer to the passion or emotion of anger. I take most of my understanding from DeYoung's book, which utilizes Aquinas' taxonomy: Pride is not among the Seven; it is the root of them. So, the basis of all sin is Pride, and at the first stage of specification, Pride manifests as one of the Seven Vices. But, to understand if these Seven Vices actually represent what they're supposed to, we must ask: *specification of what*? They are all sin; they are all forms of Pride, but what differentiates them? If we look at the spectre of fundamental differences in how sin manifests, we are able to logically verify that the seven categories are indeed distinct, comprehensive, and basic. But I have yet to see a very logical explication of this. I begin with a little demo of the kind of thinking I am looking for below: > When Pride blossoms into sin, what is the first "choice" of specification to be made? Well, to ask that, we must ask by what mechanism sin works? All that exists is from God. So, sin must be a corruption of God's work. For us to work as individuals, societies and as a species, we need to have drives. Drives can be placed on a taxonomy of basicness. The most basic drives are those directly given to us by God; less basic drives are simply more specific instantiations of (combinations of) those basic drives. For example, we have the drive to consume sustenance. So, we may have the drive to walk over to a river; that drive is a more specific one, that is simply a specific, less basic, instantiation of the drive to consume sustenance. > > So, it follows that sin must be a corruption of our drives; a disordered effort to fulfill our drives. How could our efforts be disordered? Well, if our efforts to fulfill a drive bring about net wrong, then it is disordered. But how could our effort to fulfill God-given drives bring about net wrongness? If our efforts actually harm our overall fulfillment of our drives, then they bring about net wrongness (AKA, they are "disordered"). Our efforts to fulfill a drive can fail by not actually fulfilling that drive, or by leading to a greater detriment of other drives, or (usually) a little bit of both. In all cases, we are harming our overall fulfillment of our God-given drives. > >So, if this thinking is correct, we may identify the bases of sin by identifying the bases of drives. What is the root drive? Whatever the root drive is, (assuming Aquinas and DeYoung are correct), the corruption of this root drive is Pride. I find the **drive towards self-love** to be a logical contender. Not only does it seem like the basic drive that would give rise to all other drives, that all eventually lead to the attainment of good; it also seems like Pride would be the corruption/disordering of our God-given drive to love ourselves. > > But how to proceed from here? How does this drive/vice get specified at the most fundamental level? It is claimed that the taxonomy of vices has a stem/root made that is Pride, with seven branches (each representing a Capital Vice) sprouting from it, from which all other branches and fruits come from. In logical terms, that means that we start with Pride, and then we ask a single question regarding its specific instantiation. We must find a comprehensive list of distinct answers to this single question. If that list has seven answers that each correspond to a Capital Vice, then we will have shown the taxonomy to be correct. > > It seems obvious the question will be something like "how does one engage in Pride?" Or, equivalently, "how is one's fulfillment for the root drive disordered?" Obviously, that formulation is far too vague. To answer that question in full-detail would not give us seven answers, but thousands! Instead, it must be a much narrower form of this question. So, what is this question? What is the logical structure of the taxonomy of sin? How are the Seven Capital Vices basic, comprehensive, and properly delineated (i.e., all vices are distinct)? And how do they all stem from Pride?

It should be common sense knowledge that many Christians condemn homosexuality as a sin. The following already asked questions should be more than enough to prove the point: - [Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/381/why-do-some-christians-believe-it-is-moral-to-be-a-homosexual) - [What is the Biblical argument that homosexual attraction is sinful by itself?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35233/what-is-the-biblical-argument-that-homosexual-attraction-is-sinful-by-itself) - [What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7598/what-is-a-christians-justification-for-a-legal-prohibition-of-homosexual-marria) That said, I'm not sure if I've ever heard Christians who claim that homosexuality is a sin also claim that homosexuals can be freed from their (claimed) sinful condition. Logic tells me that they should expect this to be the case, in light of passages such as: Romans 8:12-17 (ESV): > 12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, **but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live**. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. Galatians 5:16-24 (ESV): > 16 But I say, **walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh**. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 **Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality**, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 **But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness**, 23 **gentleness, self-control**; against such things there is no law. 24 **And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires**. If homosexuality is a sinful desire of the flesh, as many Christians believe, does this mean that homosexuality, as any other sin, can be reversed by the power of God, through the Holy Spirit, as the passages above seem to indicate? Is this the standard view among Christians who condemn homosexuality as a sin? An alternative way of phrasing the question: Can God heal homosexuality (according to those who view homosexuality as a sin)?

In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul says: >"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (ESV) As someone who affirms the full divinity and sinlessness of Jesus, I’m trying to understand how He could be said to "become sin" without that implying any corruption in His nature or character.

I thought of this when I was researching [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3121/when-did-knowledge-of-christs-sacrifice-become-necessary-for-salvation) . [Leviticus 4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204&version=NIV) goes into great detail about the sacrifice that must be made in order for a sin to be forgiven. However, we see here that God actually provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. Specifically, Leviticus 16 shows that this sacrifice and the [Day of Atonement](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016&version=NIV) did provide forgiveness of sins: >[Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:30&version=NIV)Emphasis added
>because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. **Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.** Now, Jews no longer provide sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, however God has still provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. (See [Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore?](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8862/why-dont-jews-sacrifice-animals-anymore) for more information.) So, if God has previously given us a way to have forgiveness of our sins, why did he send Jesus to be our ultimate sacrifice? *Edit:*
I believe that there is some doctrinal basis for this. I'm not sure which specific doctrine would best be applied to this, but I am seeking a mainstream Protestant doctrine on the matter.

Christian language often describes sin as a burden carried in the heart, and salvation as bringing peace or relief. Is there a recognized theological or scriptural basis for linking the guilt of sin with an internal “weight,” and the experience of salvation with a kind of emotional or spiritual lightness? How have Christian traditions interpreted this metaphor or experience?

It is often stated that it is impossible for us to Keep the Law - or at least it must be impossible without first receiving the Holy Spirit. Studying the OT closely, I keep finding scriptures that assert otherwise (like Moses’ speech in Deuteronomy 30). King Saul not only continues to sin after receiving the HS, but sins so greatly that God revokes his Spirit from Saul! (So much for once saved always saved). And even King David - who is otherwise treated as the Gold Standard for OT Kings - commits sins that the Law demands death for after receiving the HS. After completing another read-through of 2 Kings, I found what appears to be the perfect counter example: Josiah. After learning of the Book of the Law, Josiah re-instates the Covenant and carries out his duties to rid the land of the worship of foreign gods and other sinful practices. No fault is listed against him, and in the final analysis he is raised up even over King David: 2 Kings 23:25 > Before [Josiah] there was no king like him who turned to the Lord with all his heart, all his soul, and all his might, in conformity to all the Law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him. It is worth noting that not only did Josiah perfectly follow the Law, but he also did so without having been blessed with the HS as his predecessors Saul and David had been. How do those that maintain that only Christ and/or only those that have the HS can keep the Law reconcile that with King Josiah?

I was reading Romans 11, and 11:32a says: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief ‬ ‭KJV‬‬ I didn't understand that phrase, concluded all in unbelief, so I read a number of commentaries, of which I found Adam Clarke's the most helpful. But after reading through all the notes I took,the mystery remained to me is that we all sin. Why? The angels didn't all sin. I know God knew what would happen when he created Adam. He must have had a reason, or reasons, to create him in such a way, that he 1) was capable of sinning; 2) was the progenitor of the whole human race (as opposed to angels, who were created all at once); and 3) his proclivity to sin would be passed down. After I posed this question, and received answers that were helpful, I thought of this: We all sin, every one of us, because we lack something. God originally created us in His image (Gen 1:26). Yet as Christians, we need to be sanctified, which means we need to be changed into His image, and it won't be completed until we see Him. So we lost something of that image in the fall. Angels are completely different than us, and I don't believe we know enough about them to know why. At least I don't. There are theories proposed in answers and comments under this question Why can't there be another fall? that seem very plausible. I am hoping others can shed some more light from Scripture. Please not from a reformed perspective, I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.

I am not so sharp on Theology, but I want to present to you something that I have been thinking about. God clearly says when something is bad and we shouldn’t do it. But God also said He hates divorce, meaning its some kind of evil, because God hates evil. Now, if God hates evil, why would He approve of doing it? Not just “allow” it in the sense that He gave us free will, because in that, it makes sense. In that point, God doesn’t allow x but because of free will, He lets it happen. But in the case of divorce or polygamy, God hated these because they are evil in His sight. The thing is, He didn’t say “its wrong and you shouldn’t do it, but since you have a free will, you can choose to or not to do it. But regardless, its still wrong” He didn't say that in polygamy or divorce. He allowed a form of it (regulated) even if He hates it and sees it as evil. So when we do it, its like “it's okay, as long as you are following the regulations”. So that goes against Him that He can’t view evil, yet He allows it (meaning He doesn’t count it as a sin). However, I’ve seen some answers like: “God doesn’t approve of divorce nor of polygamy, but because it still persists, its better to regulate it to minimize harm” By that logic, why can’t we just allow sins altogether because we continually sin, yet God bans it outright? And if God doesn’t approve of it morally, yet continues to do it anyway (by actually stating that we can do it and there is no sin in us if we do), then is He immoral because He goes against what He deems evil?

According to the Bible 'sin' by definition is anything that is against God! Which is why God cannot commit sin [Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2], not that He doesn't choose to commit sin. This is because God cannot do anything against Himself [2Tim.2:13]. In other words, it is impossible for God to sin. However, when we think of the creation we sin because we have the freedom to choose between good and bad. Adam and Eve committed sin because of that freedom. If we assume that they sinned because of the tempter then this is not the case when Satan sinned while being in the very presence of God! Therefore, a free being/entity can commit sin even when that being/entity has no sinful nature internally or a sinful tempter externally. All those who enter into Heaven or the presence of God and enjoy eternal life will have free-will. But the question is what makes them not to sin again like Satan or other angels that were sent out from God's presence because of their sin?

In Mtt 11:21(KJV) Jesus laments the fate of two cities: > Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Here, Jesus is referring to the collective sins of the cities . In so far as the Ten Commandments are concerned, they are mandated to be followed by individuals . Reward for obeying them as well as punishment for disobedience are also decided on individual-to-individual basis. But then there are collective sins which individuals may partake of in the capacity of members of a group, for example, voting for legalization of abortion for family planning. How far is the offence culpable in individual capacity ? How is the individual punished ? Does Catholic Church have consolidated teachings on collective sins and their implications ?

I believe the Holy Spirit can make you feel guilty for an actual sin while the enemies of God can make you feel guilty for an alleged sin that isn't one or keep you feel guilty for a sin you repented from. What are ways to discern if a feeling of guilt is from the Holy Spirit or from the enemy? Do any Catholic or Orthodox saints or Pentecostals provide insight on how to discern?

It seems that Jesus talks out against divorce. But in other places, divorce is allowed. How does this all play out and where does the bible really stand on this? Is it a sin or is it just part of the culture? I'm seeking the exegesis of [mainstream Protestant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant) denominations, since I believe that these will all be similar (if not identical). If differences of interpretation exist between the different denominations, please let me know and I'll refine my scope a bit.

Note that my question is asking about married couples, not just any two people engaging in intercourse. According to the Catholic Church, would a husband in wife be in sin if they committed any of the following acts: 1. Anal sex 2. Oral sex (Manual sex) 3. Sex during pregnancy with knowledge of that pregnancy. 4. Sex after menopause. The reason I ask for these is because it seems that birth control is immoral since it leaves out the openness to life. So what about these circumstances? Also, perhaps one could add whether or not these are mortal or venial sins?

How does one confess being an occasion of sin for others? If you said *"I created an occasion of sin for others 5 times"* I can't imagine that's really a species and not just the genus. So what are the species? Are they the 9 ways of sharing in sin? So could you say *"I praised people for committing sins 5 times and commanded people to commit sins 5 times."* Or is the species also what sin it was? So you would have to say *"I praised people for schism 5 times and I concealed someone's theft 5 times."*

How did medieval Bible commentator [Hugh of Saint-Cher](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_of_Saint-Cher) translate Romans 3:23? That is, particularly, what Latin did he use for "hamartia?" Did he alter the translation from Jerome's Vulgate?

We have many scriptures about Jesus' humanity. Several specific verses about his total dependence on the Father, his God, for all his needs, his words and his ability to perform miracles etc. Jesus was a fleshly man - "made like us in every way" Heb 2:17 Not *some* or *most* ways, but *every* way. As he was indeed tempted - again - 'as we are', then it follows that he *could have sinned* - as we do. >we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin Heb 4:15 The very point of temptation - and his need to resist every and all temptations to become the Lamb of God, is pointless if sin was not a possibility. The fact that he *did not sin* has nothing to do with his inherent ability as a man, like us, to be *able to* sin, should he have chosen to do so or faltered before severe and prolonged temptation. As Heb 4:15 "yet, he did not sin", implies, at the very least, that the potential was there but he was able to resist and remain victorious over evil. What kind of victory has he achieved over evil and death if failure was never remotely possible or even feasible? What evidence does the bible provide to support this premise of Jesus' potential for committing a sin?