When Luther broke from Catholic traditions and (according to Protestants) returned to early Catholic faith and to the teaching of the gospel in the New Testament, a lot of attention was paid on the main difference, that being justification by faith alone. It is right to identify this as the main split, however a second order split seems to go largely unnoticed, which is a different view of sin altogether. Luther thought Christians sin every day, every hour, or rather, every second with ‘mortal sins’, as opposed to ‘venial’ or minor sins.
Note: Catholics differentiate types of sins into multiple categories, something that Luther also rejected entirely.
It seems most Protestants have little interest in understanding the Catholic views, so the difference over the concept of sin is unsurprisingly easier to find documented by Catholics. Even though it is written as an apologetic to the Roman Catholic view, here is a fairly good summary on the different view as described by Catholics.
The basic difference is regarding the desires of our flesh:
Catholic view:
From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature.
Protestant View:
Concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam's transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin
In other words those basic desires that we face every day, in the form of temptations, or in the form of preventing us from perfectly loving God, are not necessarily sins according to Roman Catholic teaching but are essential sins according to Protestant teaching. This Protestant teaching is considered heresy by official Catholic doctrine. In other words, Luther described himself as being way too sinful than what can be accepted by the leaders of the Catholic church, which Luther rejected as being even more sinful than he.
Luther says many places in his writings that ‘all our righteousness are as filthy rags’ and all sin is damnable, otherwise it is not a sin, so that even in our good works we sin. Or simply put:
No one is able to love God from his whole heart, etc., and his neighbor as himself [Mark 12:30–31]. We therefore say that a man is justified by faith, not by love. (Luther’s Works Vol 34, Page 309)
So, my question is: Is this view of sin unique to Protestants, or are there some other large groups taking the name Christian that also see themselves as committing damnable sins, every day (or in less shocking language ‘to be imperfect’ due to the ‘remaining sinful desires of the flesh’), that they need not fear damnation from, due to their justification apart from their own works? Or is it only the Protestants who have this radical view of sin?
Note: This is by no means saying Luther says we can sin willingly and claim to have faith, he means in our imperfect state due to the flesh, we do sin perpetually unwillingly as we make a most admirable attempt to resist sin and love God because our flesh is essentially sinful, which Catholics deny.
To provide some detail on the background history overt his split between the Catholic Church and Luther and provide some additional historic references. Some modern protestants may not even be aware of fundamental difference.
It actually stems from the 95 Thesis by Martin Luther that eventually resulted on this point in condemnation from the Council of Trent, Canon XXV
CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.
A man named Latomus condemned Luther in response to his thesis and Luther subsequently defended his view.
In response to Latomus Luther defended his view that even in good works Christians sin. It goes without saying that sin, according to Luther was always damnable if not covered by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness by faith.
If the works of righteous men are sins, as Thesis 7 of this disputation states, this is much more the case concerning the works of those who are not righteous.
and
The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless. In Eccles. 7[:20], we read, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” In this connection, however, some people say that the righteous man indeed sins, but not when he does good. They may be refuted in the following manner: “If that is what this verse wants to say, why waste so many words?” or does the Holy Spirit like to indulge in loquacious and foolish babble? For this meaning would then be adequately expressed by the following: “There is not a righteous man on earth who does not sin.” Why does he add “Who does good,” as if another person were righteous who did evil? For no one except a righteous man does good. Where, however, he speaks of sins outside the realm of good works he speaks thus [Prov. 24:16], “The righteous man falls seven times a day.” Here he does not say, “A righteous man falls seven times a day when he does good.” This is a comparison. If someone cuts with a rusty and rough hatchet, even though the worker is a good craftsman, the hatchet leaves bad, jagged, and ugly gashes. So it is when God works through us. (Luther’s Works Vol 31, Page 44)
and
The first article attacked by Latomus is this: Every good work is sin. First, he deduces unacceptable consequences from this thesis; second, he opposes it with contrary [views]; third, he impugns my premises. In driving this Sennacherib [2 Kings 19:28; cf. Isa. 37:29] back to his own land, I shall begin with the last point and thus start by defending my own position. In order to deprive me of that wonderful verse in Isa. 64[:6] which reads, “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like filthy rags,” he interprets it so that neither he nor I can use it.
Luthers Works 32, Page 161
Or again Luther describing the sinful nature in complete opposition to a view that imagining obtaining sinless perfection, even if it be for a few minutes in one day:
In this alone we are saved, therefore, that having sin and living in sin we grieve because we have it and cry to God for deliverance, in accord with John’s saying (1 John 1:8–9): “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” In this way, yes, in this way, “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise” (Ps. 51:17). “For there is no man who does not sin,” says Solomon in his prayer (1 Kings 8:46). And Moses in Ex. 34:7 says: “Before whom no man of himself is innocent.” And again, Eccl. 7:20 says: “There is not a righteous man on the earth who does good and never sins.” And again, “Who can say, ‘I have made my heart clean?’ ” (Prov. 20:9). Therefore: “There is none righteous. All have turned aside” (Ps. 14:3; Rom. 3:10, 12). Thus we pray: “Forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12). And where do these sins and debts come from? Because no one fulfills the Law except Christ. For no living man is justified before God, because his heart is always weak toward the good and prone toward evil. He does not love righteousness without in some way also loving iniquity. But Christ “loves righteousness and hates wickedness” (Ps. 45:7). As the apostle explains later on in chapter 7:25, “With the flesh we serve the law of sin, but with the spirit the Law of God.” And thus we are partly righteous, but not wholly so. Thus we have sin and debt. When we pray, therefore, that our righteousness be made perfect in us and that our sin be taken away, we are praying at the same time to finish this life. For in this life this inclination toward evil will never be perfectly cleansed, just as the Children of Israel, to use a figure of speech, could not drive out the Jebusites. Hence, immediately after the petition “Hallowed be Thy name” (which takes place through our sanctification from sins and evil works) comes the petition “Thy kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10), as if he were saying that it will not be a complete sanctification except in Thy kingdom. But this also will not come except through tribulations. Therefore the words “Thy will be done” follow, just as Christ prayed in the garden in the time of His tribulation. (Luther Works 25, page 246)
