Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard joins Cy Kellett to respond to Protestant author Ron Rhodes’ objections to the Catholic understanding of mortal and venial sin. Drawing on Scripture and Catholic tradition, they clarify why Catholic teaching doesn’t downplay sin but instead reveals our deep need for a Savior.
Transcript:
Cy: I’ll tell you what, I want to confront you with some points made in a book by Ron Rhodes called *Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics*. So this will do two things. We can respond to the book. We can also help people to maybe give some ideas to people about the kind of objections you might have or troubles you might have with Catholic doctrine.
And so in that book, *Reasoning from Scriptures with Catholics*, Ron Rhodes objects to the Catholic doctrine of mortal and venial sin. And he does so basically for three reasons. So I thought I’d go through the three reasons with you.
Karlo: Awesome. Yeah, let’s do it. Alright.
Cy: First, the Catholic doctrine of mortal and venial sin leads to a lax attitude about sin.
Karlo: All right. So the first thing that we can say in response is to affirm that perhaps for some individuals this doctrine of the distinction between mortal and venial sin can lead Catholics to a lax attitude about sin. But that would only be saying something about the individual Catholics or the individual Catholic, not the doctrine itself. The problem would not be with the doctrine. The problem would be with that individual in his or her relationship with Jesus.
Which leads me to the second response to this objection, and that is Catholic spirituality in general involves an understanding of how in life with Christ and walking with Christ and living the Christian life, we ought to seek and try our best by God’s grace to avoid even venial sin out of love for Christ. Venial sin being sins that offend the relationship with God but are not serious enough to destroy our relationship with God and make us subject to condemnation.
In contrast, mortal sin being a grave, serious sin that when committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent does destroy that relationship and make us thereby subject to condemnation, such that if we don’t repent of that mortal sin and we die with that mortal sin, hell will be our lot.
But even for venial sin, Catholic spirituality involves the pursuit of holiness in such a degree that we ought to try our best by God’s grace to even avoid venial sin out of love for Christ. Because the saint, the one who loves Christ, doesn’t want to offend the beloved in any way whatsoever, even if it’s venial sin.
And so that’s a second response to Rhodes’ argument here. So contrary to his assertion that the Catholic distinction of mortal and venial sin leads to a lax attitude about sin, the Catholic tradition involves a very serious approach or attitude towards sin, even venial sin, because we love Christ so much right now.
Another response.
Cy: Something to think about. Notice how when Rhodes makes this argument, he’s capturing the mind to focus only on the venial sin which leads to a forgetting about the mortal sin. But we can’t forget about the mortal sin. The Catholic doctrine of mortal sin involves a sin such that when you commit it with full knowledge and deliberate consent, you make yourself subject to condemnation. You put yourself outside of the divine life as a member of the mystical body of Christ.
And so that’s something to be taken seriously. We ought not to take that lightly. Nor does the Church command us to take it lightly. The Church commands us to take it seriously because we care about our relationship with the Lord and whether or not we’re going to go to heaven.
And then finally, I think we can turn the tables here and say, well, wait a minute, you know, Rhodes is challenging the Catholic doctrine as leading to a lax attitude towards sin, but yet his own view of how future sins are forgiven, which is involved in the once saved, always saved or eternal security doctrine. One could argue that that view leads to a lax attitude about sin.
If I’m of the belief that my future sins, my current sins, and my future sins are already forgiven by the application of the merits of Jesus’s death on the cross initially when I first came to believe in Christ, well, then that could also very well lead someone to have a lax attitude towards sin.
Now, granted, he might counter and say, well, that would be only for some individuals who aren’t really loving Christ fully. But others will have a very grave concern about sin because they love the Lord. But of course, that’s the same sort of response that we could give as Catholics. So those are a few thoughts in response to that initial concern or troubling thought about the distinction between mortal and venial sin.
Cy: Are there a lot of people going around going, you know, who’s really not serious about sin? The Catholic Church. I don’t think that’s our reputation. Is it like, you know, that’s a great point.
Karlo: Right? I mean, normally we as Catholics are the ones who are recognizing we’re so full of guilt.
Cy: Yeah, right. Well, where is this Catholic Church that everyone’s like, man, are they lenient about sin?
Alright, let’s get to his second objection. This again comes from the book *Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics* by Ron Rhodes. Rhodes says, okay. His second problem follows on from this first one. He thinks that the doctrine makes Catholics view themselves as basically good people, which in turn makes them think they don’t need a savior.
Karlo: Yeah. So Rhodes’ idea here is that if we’re only guilty of venial sin, we’re pretty good people. And so he thinks that’s gonna lead us Catholics to, well, we don’t really need Jesus. But in response, Catholic theology involves the need for a Savior, even for venial sin.
We cannot have even the guilt of venial sin remitted from our souls without the causality of the death of Jesus Christ. In this order of providence, God has willed the death of Jesus Christ to be the efficient cause, the very thing in virtue of which we can have our sins remitted, whether mortal or venial.
So it’s simply false for Rhodes to assert that the doctrine of venial sin would lead Catholics to think that they don’t need a Savior. In fact, the Catholic doctrine of venial sin does indeed involve the need for a Savior, because no sin can be remitted in this order of providence without the efficient causality of Jesus’ death on the cross.
Cy: Alright, let’s give the third one, and these are Ron Rhodes’ objections to the Catholic doctrine of mortal sin and venial sin. The third one is this. This doctrine contradicts the Biblical teaching that the gift of salvation is a permanent transaction which can never be lost.
Karlo: Yeah. And so this problem, or troublesome idea, is directed particularly at mortal sin, because we Catholics believe mortal sin can destroy the saving relationship that we initially entered into when we first came to faith and were baptized, et cetera.
And now, in response here, we don’t have time for this side, but just to note that the response here would involve looking at the biblical passages that reveal to us that one who is justified or in Christ, no longer subject to condemnation can put himself outside of Christ and thereby be subject to condemnation once again.
And so this is a whole discussion that involves the question of whether the once saved, always saved doctrine maps on with what the Bible teaches or not. Again, we don’t have time to go into that, but a couple of passages just to throw out there.
Galatians 5:4. St. Paul says that those Christians in Galatia who were going back to the old law to be justified have severed themselves from Christ, which implies they once were in Christ, therefore saved, but have severed themselves from Christ, thereby implying that they are now again subject to condemnation, thereby losing their salvation.
And 2 Peter 2:20-22. St. Peter talks about those who have fled the defilements of the world, which implies they were legitimate Christians, justified initially and saved, but yet returned back to those defilements of the world. And St. Peter says their latter state is worse than their former, like a dog returning to its vomit.
And so those would be a couple of passages to challenge Rhodes’ assumption that the once saved, always saved doctrine is the Biblical teaching, which in fact is not the case. So the doctrine of mortal sin would not be a troublesome doctrine if you can see that the Bible rejects the once saved, always saved doctrine.
Cy: Alrighty, our topic for today is just that: which Catholic doctrine troubles you? The doctrine of mortal and venial sin troubled the writer Ron Rhodes.