‍The Bible doesn't distinguish between mortal and venial sins

  Gary Hoge  ·  November 6, 2026

‍It is certainly true that “the wages of sin is death,” but it does not necessarily follow that a person will go to hell for breaking the speed limit. In Romans 6, Paul contrasts slavery to sin, which leads to death, with obedience to God, which leads to eternal life. He is not attempting to classify every individual sinful action according to its gravity. Consequently, his statement that “the wages of sin is death” does not establish that every sin has precisely the same spiritual consequences.

‍According to the Bible, all sin is wrongdoing, but some sins are more serious than others. John wrote, “there is sin leading to death … there is sin not leading to death” (1 John 5:16–17, NKJV).

‍John explicitly distinguishes between sin that leads to death and sin that does not. Although Christians disagree about precisely what John means by death in this passage, his distinction is consistent with the Catholic teaching that some sins merely wound our relationship with God, while others destroy our spiritual life.

‍Protestant Bible commentator Matthew Henry recognized a similar distinction. Commenting on 1 John 5:16–17, he wrote:

‍There is a great distinction in the heinousness and guilt of sin: There is a sin unto death (v. 16), and there is a sin not unto death, v. 17. … There are sins which, by divine constitution, are unto death spiritual and evangelical, that is, are inconsistent with spiritual and evangelical life, with spiritual life in the soul and with an evangelical right to life above.¹

‍Henry was not necessarily endorsing the Catholic doctrine in all its particulars, but he clearly recognized the underlying distinction.

‍Nor is the distinction between mortal and venial sin a recent Catholic invention. In the late fourth century, the Christian writer Jerome explicitly used both terms:

‍There are venial sins and there are mortal sins. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe but a farthing. We shall have to give an accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery. But to be made to blush and to be tortured are not the same thing. … There is a great difference between one sin and another.²

‍Jerome’s point is straightforward. Although we are accountable to God for every sin, not all sins are equally serious, nor do they all deserve the same consequences.

‍According to Catholic teaching, mortal sin destroys charity in the soul and deprives us of sanctifying grace, while venial sin wounds our relationship with God without severing it. A person who dies in unrepented mortal sin is separated from God eternally; venial sin does not have that consequence.

‍But what makes a sin mortal? The Catholic Church has identified three conditions that must all be present.

‍1) Grave matter. The sin in question must be objectively serious. An impatient remark to your spouse is hardly comparable to deliberately giving false testimony that sends an innocent person to prison.

‍2) Full knowledge. The sin must not only be objectively serious; we must also know that what we’re doing is gravely wrong. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is gravely wrong. But a Protestant may have been taught that it is morally acceptable and may sincerely believe that he is doing nothing wrong. Depending on the circumstances, his ignorance could diminish or even eliminate his personal culpability.

‍Jesus himself taught that a person’s knowledge affects his culpability:

‍“And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few” (Luke 12:47–48, NASB).

‍3) Deliberate consent. We must freely and deliberately choose to commit the sin.

‍For example, avoiding drunkenness may be relatively easy for someone who has no desire to drink. But what about someone struggling with alcoholism? His addiction may seriously impair his freedom to resist temptation. That doesn’t necessarily mean he bears no responsibility, but it may substantially diminish his culpability.

‍The first requirement concerns the objective seriousness of an action, while the other two concern the person’s knowledge and freedom in committing it. These can be much more difficult to assess, particularly when psychological pressures, ingrained habits, or addictions are involved. An action may be gravely wrong, yet the person committing it may not be guilty of mortal sin because he lacked sufficient knowledge or freedom. This is why we cannot automatically conclude that someone has committed a mortal sin simply because we know what he did.

‍The Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin isn’t an attempt to excuse wrongdoing or suggest that some sins don’t matter. All sin is offensive to God, and all sin calls for repentance.

‍But Scripture itself distinguishes between sin that leads to death and sin that does not. And that distinction makes sense. It would be difficult to reconcile God’s justice and mercy with the notion that an idle word and a deliberate murder necessarily have the same effect on our relationship with him. Both are wrong, but not all wrongdoing is equally destructive.

‍__________

^‍1 Matthew Henry, Exposition of the Old and New Testament, commentary on 1 John 5:16–17. https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/1John.5.14-1John.5.17

^‍2 St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 2.30 (A.D. 393), in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 6, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, translated by W. H. Fremantle (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893). https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30092.htm