On denying the sacrament for “political” reasons

Seems to me that those living in unrepentant sin (and perhaps that includes leading others to sin) is always grounds for denying communion. Communing with those living in willful, unrepentant sin is just as dangerous as communing with believers in another (false) doctrine. If unity in confession must come before unity in communion, I would think the same 1 Corinthians principles apply to unrepentant, flagrant sinners.

Communing with those living in willful, unrepentant sin is just as dangerous … (@ 1)

There is no danger in communing with unrepentant sinners. All the danger is theirs.

Tom @ 3,
While you are technically right, there is an obligation on the behalf of the clergy to admonish those who are impenitently engaged in gross and heinous sin.

J @ 5, of course there is.

@8, so, Steve, you do have a fence then:

“Flaunting your sin, advocating sin, poisoning the congregation…is another matter.”

Tom is correct the danger is theirs. However, this may trouble Christians, which is the opposite of what the Lord desires in His Supper.

We have decided to err on the side of God’s grace for sinners.

We believe the sacrament to be pure gospel. Not for those who are deserving. Not for those who understand it completely. But for who will receive it in faith.

And in sermons and in classes, we proclaim it and teach about it.

Actually, those who commune with unrepentant sinners knowingly (key word there) do have danger, because Paul warns us to not even eat with someone who claims the Gospel, but denies the power thereof, in 2 Timothy 3. I would suggest that supporting the brutality of abortion qualifies for excluding such a person from (at least full) fellowship, and those who would welcome such people into full fellowship fall under the stigma of Paul’s warning.

Old Adam, #13,

“We have decided to err on the side of God’s grace for sinners.”

If you are going to err, I suppose it is better to err on the side of the gospel. But shouldn’t the objective be NOT to err? The core premise of your statement reads in the first few words:

“We have decided to err.”

fws, good to hear from you. I hope you are feeling better.

Don @ 20 (and Sarah @ 1), yeah, on second thought, there IS danger in letting unrepentant sinners take Communion – if they’re known to the congregation as such. Who among us is so strong as to never think, “If they can get away with it, why can’t I?” At least as a passing thought. Which would be harder and harder to shake off the longer we see the unrepentant sinner being allowed to take Communion.

KK,

Jumping in late to this debate but your question seems clear to me. Addicts are most often seriously repentant–actually, serially repentant. The over-eater, alcoholic, and drug addict are sick and spiritually starving individuals who need nourishment. Denying them communion is quite literally denying a starving man food.

KK,

If a person is publicly reveling in activities that run contrary to their stated beliefs, I would question whether they are truly addicts or if there’s something else going on in their lives. Addicts don’t tend revel in their habits, they more often tend to hide them. Nonetheless, to the extent the pastor’s addictions or any other proclivities are affecting the lives of his family or his congregation, he should consider stepping aside. If they’re grossly affecting them he should be forced to step aside. However, though he should be forced aside from public ministry, he should not necessarily be denied communion.

Klasie, for starters (#24) that can be a Baptist, too, and I really wish (#22) you wouldn’t refer to me personally in this way. :^)

Just kidding; really, great point, and suffice it to say that I agree that it is one of many “respectable sins” that the church has forgotten how to rebuke. And I can confess occasional difficulty with a knife and fork, though thankfully not hospitalization for gross obesity.

Klasie @22
The problem with the dealing with sinners is not a focus necessarily on what WE see. We need to return to the distinction of mortal and venial sins. When that is the starting point, then we can approach a person to determine if the sin problem is concerning one who revels in his/her sin(s) or is genuinely struggling with the sin(s). We all stumble into sins because of weakness (veniel) but when we defend our sin(s) and/or even promote them, then we are in danger of damnation and must be brought to repentance.

@30 Try Job 15:23, 27-30, New King James version.

Kempin04 – the book of Proverbs identifies gluttony with drunkenness, in a couple of places, for starters.

Frank fails properly to account for the fact that the keys include both loosing and binding. When one’s sins are “bound” there is no forgiveness, in fact, the person is placed outside the Church at that point, to be handed over to Satan, hopefully for a little while, in order to drive him to recognize his sin, repent of it and return to the Church.

So, for instance, a homosexual person who persists in his homosexual activities, against his better judgement, in defiance of God’s clear Word, must be excommunicated.

So also the one committing adultery and anyone caught up in what the Lutheran Confessions describe as open and manifest willful sins that do drive out the Holy Spirit.

Preach it, Klasie, on both gluttony and gossip.

Regarding proscription of gluttony, I’d also add the last letter of the decalogue. Seems to me that the person who won’t stop eating has a problem with covetousness.

Klasie–understood fully. My response is that I accept your test cases–and the rest of the 1 Timothy passage–with the provision that it be done with pastoral oversight in the overall context of church discipline. If a politican is promoting gluttony with corn subsidies or gossip by constantly using anonymous sources, they need to face the discipline of their church. That may, or may not, include refusal of the Lord’s Supper.

Klasie, #33,

Where?

Jon H, #31,

Good reference. It does seem, though, that the scripture from job cites obesity as a symptom of wealth. Would you agree? Would you further add the wealthy the list of those who need to be rebuked?

Klasie,

Looks like we had better add sloth to the list, then, along with wealth.

For the record, I am not, strictly speaking, objecting to the point. I just want to make sure that our rebukes are coming from the scripture and not just a pharisaic consensus. Your larger point is very well received, that we have a tendency to fixate on other people’s sins and ignore what the scripture says about our own. I’m just ruminating that while the scripture certainly speaks negatively of gluttony, I do not recall any place where it is specifically forbidden. Covetousness, as Bike says, would certainly cover “food greed” by implication. Overeating is poor stewardship. I’m not sure that obesity in itself is necessarily the evidence of sin, though. (Likely, perhaps, but not necessarily.) Would you make the same point about smoking, say, or about someone who does not maintain their health in a responsible way? Is that sin? Is it a sin to pierce your ears or tattoo, (Leviticus 19:28), or to use a tanning bed and risk skin cancer? If you are going to bind someone from the Lord’s supper, you had better have a crystal clear scripture. Biblically, there seems to be a stronger case for pierced ears than obesity.

Pastor Mc Cain you are conditioning those Two Words “for YOU” that, alone, convert the preaching of Christ Crucified from being horrifying Law to comforting Gospel.

And the condition is that men must do a “philosophical righteousness” that man can do with no need for Christ or the Holy Spirit or the Bible. You are demanding that men do a repentence in the “narrow sense” (see the formula of concord art V, Solid declaration here , paragraph 8ff). Until they do this, you will withhold the Two Words from them.

I simply must not be understanding you correctly! I simply refuse to believe that my dear Pastor Mc Cain would teach such a doctrine! Correct my understanding of your words please dear sir!

try seeing it this way Kempin:

Natural Man with his romans 2:15 Natural Law includes, fully so, everything that existed in man before the fall, and continues to exist in the Natural Man after the fall.

There is only ONE thing that existed in Natural Man before the fall, and does NOT exist in Natural Man after the fall.

That ONE thing that is missing in Natural Man after the fall but existed in him before the fall is this, alone:
The Image of God. The Image of God is , exactly, faith, alone in Christ alone. Alone. Alone. Alone.
This is the ONE thing that Adam had that the Old Adam lacks and is ,alone, restored, in the New Man.
This ONE thing, that is the very Image of God and Original Righteousness, is fully restored to New Man , alone , in Holy Baptism.

Yet the Old Adam still clings to the believer. Therefore what the Formula of Concord describes is ALL that we can sense of ourselves in th0ught, word, deed , will , soul, and , indeed… our very nature and essence. it is so much a part of us believers that only God will be able to separate us from old adam upon our death.

bless you pastor Kempin

@38

I fail to see why Klasie believes the media’s portrayal of Christians. Take Klasie for example: Klasie does not have a massive hang-up on homosexuality. And these other things, that affect his neighbor, Klasie does not so easily discard. Klasie also knows personally many other Christians like himself, yet he comes on here and generalizes that Christians have such massive hang-ups on homosexuality, but these other things, that affects my neighbor, are so easily discarded. It is like Klasie speaks not from experience or data but merely parrots negative stereotypes promoted in the popular press. What if some other group, say blacks or hispanics, were given such negative coverage, would Klasie follow that, too?

Thought I would post this again, since it didn’t receive any replies:
We need to return to the distinction of mortal and venial sins. When that is the starting point, then we can approach a person to determine if the sin problem is concerning one who revels in his/her sin(s) or is genuinely struggling with the sin(s). We all stumble into sins because of weakness (veniel) but when we defend our sin(s) and/or even promote them, then we are in danger of damnation and must be brought to repentance.

Fws, #46, #47,

I’m not really sure what you are referring to with my “list construct.” I’d like to ponder through it, but it is confirmation weekend and my oldest is being confirmed. Perhaps we can come back to it later.

John H@31 I would say that God does not rebuke wealth:

“And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.

And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning. And he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first daughter Jemimah, and the name of the second Keziah, and the name of the third Keren-happuch. And in all the land there were no women so beautiful as Job’s daughters. And their father gave them an inheritance among their brothers. And after this Job lived 140 years, and saw his sons, and his sons’ sons, four generations. And Job died, an old man, and full of days.” Job 42:10-17

Crb @ 55

Those are all great quotes. I am not sure they get at helping us understand what the confessors might have meant as a distinction between mortal and venial sins. I get stuck on what a “venial” sin is, and what the import of the word venial, as contrasted with mortal is.

I would start , on a hunch, that the confessors think that ALL sin is mortal. Nothing in your quote would overturn that hunch. Sin always, always kills which is why the law always accuses and only accuses. If there were nonmortal sins, then this would not be the case would it be crb?

I downloaded the pdf of the bente triglotta English of the book of concord. There one can do word search for the words venial, sin, and mortal. I would start there of I had more time crb. Maybe you can do it?

Let me know brother.

Crb…

For example… what is the law versus gospel distinction made in art vi on the Lutheran third use of the law. If one looks for that in art vi, then they will end up with a Lutheran third use. If they miss that distinction or don’t see that distinction as THE point of the article, then one will just mine art vi to find proof texts to support s very reformed definition of third use as being the law as non killing instruction, or an imagined “indicative” use of the law vs an imperative use of the law. Which distinction should be nonsense to any Lutheran….

Hint: each believer has two Powers within him. Each power is 100% of who the believer is. That is the law gospel distinction made . It can only be understood by placing art vi in the context of art I and ii as BOTH describing who we are after Baptism and the new birth. Most who miss the law gospel distinction assume that fc art I describes the believer before, and not after, baptism. They attenuate original sin in the believer that is to say…..

The table belongs to God, not the Church. Given that Jesus shared his supper with Judas, I don’t see how we can deny the same to anyone who would receive it.

Gene @ 61: Depends on what you mean by “belongs”. It does belong to the church in the sense of a gift to be used faithfully for its own benefit. Also, Judas was not just “anyone who would receive it”. He was called out and separated from “anyone” when he became one of the twelve. Judas gave every appearance of being with Jesus’ “in” crowd. Therefore, for Jesus to give his body and blood to Judas in intimate outward communion fellowship does nothing to argue for communing just “anyone who would receive it.” Rather, Judas stands more accurately for false brethren who appear true and outwardly practice closed communion but eat and drink to their own judgment. Judas does not speak for the visitor to the Lutheran congregation who is a practicing Methodist but is denied the supper even though she desires it. Her desiring the table is an eternal blessing in itself, while Judas’ receiving from the table in denial of Christ curses him. I would rather be denied the table than to deny it. I hope you would too.

Gene @64. I assumed that you did practice open communion. My point is that the Judas argument does nothing to justify practicing either open or closed communion. Judas’ receiving is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not anybody desiring the sacrament should be able to receive it. A Judas would be able to commune according to either practice. He would pass what you might call the “strict” criteria for admission to closed communion. He would most certainly be able to commune at a table where the church and pastor don’t care about such things. I was basically saying that I hope you aren’t basing your open communion practice according to the line of thinking you posted above, @61, because that is neither a sound reason to give nor a reason to deny the supper to anyone who desires it.

Crb @62

Thanks for the wonderful additional material from Chemnitz. I will have to study it later.

Fjsteve@66

That would outline part of my concern as well. All sin kills and is mortal… it will be interesting to review what crb presents from father chemnitz

Crib

So we should be clear that the goal of those neo-scholastics is to include something we are able to do, and must do in order to be saved. They do this by saying we can cooperate with the Spirit in our sanctification and so also in the preservation of our faith. And to nurture this error, they say that we, of course, could not do this cooperating without the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

To counter this, it is important to note that Chemnitz, like Luther, refuses to place any difference in the works themselves . The difference is in the person doing them. And here it is very, very important to avoid a common modern Lutheran error: we say that it is the motive or thinking of a Christian that actually transforms the works themselves from being merely fake and pharisaic “good works” to becoming real and true GOOD works. This is very, very wrong. It places a difference in the works themselves. This is Neo-Scholasticism. Notice that Chemnitz carefully reject this notion. He also does this in art vi of the formula.

fws @68
Here is the beginning of the matter from Martin Chemnitz’s Loci. Hope it helps!
Chapter III
Definition of the Matter
Next we must consider the definition of this matter. What is mortal sin? What is venial sin in the regenerate? The usual definition is that mortal sin is those kinds of actions which cut off those who permit them from the grace of God and thus they cease to be righteous, and as a result they are condemned unless they change their minds. But venial sins are not of this nature, since out of the pure grace and mercy of God they are forgiven for the sake of the Son of God our Mediator to those who repent and in the case of these sins, their sins are covered.
In another place we have shown that in setting up correct definitions we must keep our eye on two things. The first is that in the main parts of a definition we must include those elements necessary for an understanding of the subject. The second is that they must have the foundations for each part of the definition drawn from the testimonies of Scripture.
Therefore in defining mortal sin we must indicate the chief aspect of this kind of sin, in order to understand it. These are:
I. The difference between mortal and venial sin is derived not from the subject of sin as it is considered in itself in keeping with the Law. For although one kind of sin may be greater or less than another kind, cf. John 19:11, “He who betrays Me has the greater sin”; Luke 12:47–48, “The servant who knew the will of his master and did not prepare himself and did not act in keeping with his will, will be beaten with many stripes, but he who did not know and did commit things worthy of stripes, he shall be beaten with few”; Matt. 11:24, “I say to you that it shall be more tolerable in the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for Capernaum”; yet according to the Law, if God should enter into judgment with sin, all sins in themselves are mortal, guilty of or subject to the wrath of God and worthy of the curse and eternal death. That is to say, there is no sin, even if it seems to be insignificant, which in itself according to the Law and outside of Christ, if God should enter into judgment with it, that is not worthy of eternal death. Deut. 27:26 and Gal. 3:10, “Cursed is every one who does not continue in all the words of this law, to do them; and all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ ” Therefore in the definition we must include the concept that “all sins in the unregenerate are mortal.” For “he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains over him,” John 3:36. This is what Luther is saying on Galatians 5 [Amer. Ed., 26.76], “Mortal sin and venial sin are distinguished from each other not on the basis of the substance of the deed involved or according to some difference in the sin committed, but on the basis of the person or because of the difference of those who commit the sins.”
We must note this aspect of the matter thoroughly. For the error of the Pharisees in the time of Christ pertained to the matter of big and little sins. This idea, however, is refuted at length in Matthew 5. On the other side, Jovinian contended that “all sins are equal,” something which Jerome refuted. Likewise in our own day Sebastian Frank, an unlearned and arrogant man, has asserted the same thing. But Luther is correct when he says, “As far as guilt is concerned, all sins are equal unless reconciliation takes place.” Thus those people are in error and need to be corrected who think that certain sins do not deserve death. But it is a certainty that all sins, even those which in our eyes seem minor, are worthy of the eternal curse. Augustine uses this simile: It is insufficient to make this comparison between these two kinds of sin and simply say that whether a person is on the shore or sinking in the depths of the sea, they are both dead. There will be some difference among those who are saved, just as there is a difference among stars in their brilliance, 1 Cor. 15:41, and there are also degrees among the damned because of the difference in their sins. Yet all are in damnation.
Thus also this is not a recent but an old controversy in regard to the virtues of the gentiles. Augustine at one time believed that Socrates and Heraclitus lived according to the Word, that is, they abstained from vices and controlled their living, and for this reason they were saved. He says that because Christ is called the Word or the Logos, that they lived in keeping with the Logos, and thus they had lived according to Christ. Thus it is certain that the ancients often spoke very inappropriately. Clement of Alexandria, who is celebrated for his learning, says that the philosophers were justified according to the natural law because they had no other. Thus also Epiphanius stated that many among the gentiles were saved by the law of nature. Pelagius believed the same thing. Yet Augustine, in thinking more carefully on this matter, rejected it. In Epist. 95 he says that the virtues in the gentiles do please us with a certain peculiar quality which they have by nature, so that it is not easy for us to condemn them. We would hope that they might be delivered from eternal torment. But human desires are one thing and the sentence of divine judgment and the righteousness of our Creator are something else. Their virtues in themselves are not evil but good, as when a person is moved by mercy toward his poor neighbor, covers his nakedness, gives him something to drink, things which in themselves are not evil. But the voice of judgment says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” Rom. 14:23. Augustine is correct in saying, “Not only must they do good things, but they must do well. There are many good works, but they are rendered unprofitable because the people by whom they are done do not do well. Our works are not to be judged by our actions but by our intentions, for an action must be compared with a righteous purpose.” Thus the formal cause and the final cause make the difference between the good works of the regenerate and the virtues of the gentiles. “An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit,” Luke 6:43. Prosper, in his book De Vocatione Gentium [MPL 33.764 ff.], says, “Without the worship of the true God that which appears as virtue is sin, because nothing can please God without God.” Lombard cites the statement of Anselm, “The whole life of unbelievers is sin.” We must make a distinction between the gifts of God and the impurities which inhere in us by reason of which even the virtues of the gentiles are contaminated, so that they are sin.
II. Because in the definition of mortal sin mention is made of lapses or falls contrary to conscience, we should note that this is a Scriptural expression: Acts 24:16, “I am always anxious to have a conscience without offense toward God and men”; Rom. 13:5, “Be obedient for the sake of conscience”; 1 Tim. 1:5, “The purpose of this commandment is love which issues from a pure heart, from a good conscience and from sincere faith”; Heb. 10:22, “Purify your hearts from an evil conscience”; 1 Peter 3:21, “the covenant of a good conscience.” The conscience is called the judgment of the mind regarding what has been done or ought to be done, as it says in Rom. 2:15, “… their conscience bears witness concerning their thoughts which accuse or excuse them”; or Col. 2:14, where “the written accusation which was used against us” is referred to conscience. Therefore whatever evils we commit against our own conscience, these are quite properly called mortal sins. Thus 1 John 3:21, “If our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God.”
But it is not an easy matter to show in the case of the individual precepts the difference between mortal and venial sin. Yet Luther’s explanation is simple, and it shows how mortal sins in the regenerate can be seen and recognized, namely, when the regenerate refuse to repent, do not fight against sin but indulge in wicked lusts and knowingly and willingly act upon them. For where there is no repentance, there there is no faith, and no grace. When a person refuses to repent, at the same time the Holy Spirit is driven out and faith is lost. Hence the Apology [4.353, Tappert, p. 161] correctly says, “There must also be faith, and it must increase in repentance.” Thus Christ says, “Unless you repent you shall all perish,” Luke 13:3, cf. Jer. 5:5, “Even the great men have broken the yokes and burst the bounds. ‘Shall I not visit them?’ says the Lord.”
The teaching regarding the degrees of conscience give some help to this consideration. For example in James 1:14–15, these grades or steps are mentioned: (1) our own original concupiscence; (2) the temptation by our concupiscence, when it begins to urge us to evil and gives us evil thoughts; (3) the inviting enticements. For we are lured by these enticements, just like birds and fish. In the same way our original lust invites us by these lures; (4) the enticing occurs when our will through the fires of evil desires is unexpectedly seized to bring it to obedience. Even the regenerate person can fall into this position. For Paul in Rom. 7:23 laments that he is made captive, but while he still remains in Christ he resists and damnation is still not upon him, Rom. 8:1; (5) an evil intention is conceived, a plan to do wrong. When wickedness progresses to this point, repentance and faith are driven away; (6) “Lust brings forth sin,” that is, when this work is completed which was undertaken, then sin produces death.
From this passage in James we can see the distinction used in the ancient church, as we see in Lombard, Bk. 2, dist. 24 [MPL 51.647–722], where he cites Augustine.

1. The first degree or step is the evil suggestion.
2. The enticement.
3. The consent. When the will agrees.
4. The planning or scheming.
5. The evil deed itself.

To these steps of Augustine later scholars, such as Gregory the Great and Isidore, added others which can be listed in this way: from evil activity comes the habit of sinning; from the habit of sinning comes the excusing of sinning; from this comes the defense of sinning. Later comes an obstinacy, and then a glorying and exulting in it. Note Prov. 2:14, “He rejoices in evil things”; Ps. 52:3 (Vulgate), “Why do you glory in malice, you who are mighty in iniquity?” Is. 3:9, “They revel in their sin as Sodom. They do not hide it.” For the Sodomites in Gen. 19:9 were such shameless sinners before God, as if they actually saw God before them and yet they did not blush to make an open admission of their crimes. They continued to act this way until they were cast into destruction. For after boasting and glorying in sin, there finally followed the “reprobate mind” of which Paul speaks in Rom. 1:28, “God gave them up to a perverted mind,” from which comes the final step, the sin against the Holy Spirit.
The study of these steps is useful, for it shows how repentance is first delayed because of our lust, then little by little broken down and finally destroyed, conquered, and ultimately rejected and driven away, until it is utterly crushed and leads into the sin against the Holy Spirit.
But we must also note the steps or degrees of concupiscence. For in Paul even in his regenerate state there were the fires of depraved lusts in which his flesh delighted and which took his will captive; and yet because he mourned over this, resisted it and kept a good conscience, we must not consider him to have committed mortal sin.
God Himself shows these steps in concupiscence in the Decalog in the Ninth and Tenth Commandments. For in Deut. 5:21 in the Ninth Commandment chāmad is used, which is derived from the idea of the heart burning with original or innate lust or emotions. The word includes the root of this concupiscence, the idea of our being pushed into it and enjoying it. The Latin translator tried to express the force of this term through the word, “You shall not covet,” but he could not quite get the emphasis of the word. Luther, in the German language which sometimes can express ideas of this kind better than the Latin, renders it, “Du Solt dich Nicht lassen Gelusten” (you shall not allow yourself to hanker after something). In Ps. 51:5 David uses the cognate word which is taken from the root yācham or chāmam, and means that the conception of lust has taken place in heat. This word includes the first or original lust, when the flesh burns in its desires. From this we can to some degree estimate the force of the term which concurs with the ideas set forth in Rom. 7:7, “They would not have known lust if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ ”
In the Tenth Commandment the fourth conjugation verb(˒āvah) is used which means that a person lusts or desires eagerly. But in the fourth conjugation there is a reciprocal aspect involved, which reflects an action toward the person performing the action. That is, the person causes himself to lust eagerly which clearly includes by this emphasis the other steps in concupiscence. Thus in Gen. 3:6 it says of the forbidden tree that it was “desirable and something that a person would lust after.” Thus in the Ninth Commandment is the first step of concupiscence, but in the Tenth are the rest of the steps, when I am really helping my lust along (wann ich der Lust so weit bringt), so that I am now planning and thinking about my lust. Num. 11:4 has, “The people had a strong craving for meat,” of which it speaks in 1 Cor. 10:6. Sirach in Ecclus. 18:30–31, seems to be emphasizing the same thing when he says, “Do not give free rein to your lusts, but control them; do not indulge the desire of your soul, for lust will make you a joy to your enemies.” And Paul says in Rom. 6:12–13, that when sin so reigns in a man he is “obedient to its lusts and yields his members as instruments of wickedness.” Note also Rom. 7:8, “Sin through the commandment worked in me all kinds of covetousness”; Gal. 5:16, “Do not gratify the desires of the flesh”; Ecclus. 9:9, “Lust is kindled like a fire”; Prov. 6:18, “The heart devises plans for lust.”
The explanation of Luther for discerning mortal sins is this: When repentance has ceased, when faith has been crushed, then a man is in a state of mortal sin. We have already spoken of the refusal to repent, but it is not out of the question to say something about the loss of faith also, for “without faith it is impossible to please God,” Heb. 11:6; and “He who does not believe shall be condemned,” Mark 16:16; and “The wrath of God remains over him,” John 3:36.
The loss of faith is shown by four very simple signs:
1. As the common definition says, when a person assents to an error in a fundamental article of faith. For the articles of faith are the objects of justifying faith. Eph. 2:20, “We are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.” Thus a person who does not know the number of years that Methuselah lived or the dimensions of Noah’s ark is no worse off, as long as he retains the foundation of the faith. But if a person in regard to his salvation believes something other than what the Gospel teaches, for example, if he ignores the merit of the Son of God which is brought to him in the Word and the sacraments, so that he does not apply it to himself by faith, or if a person allows an error in the doctrine of the person or the work of Christ, such a person commits an error in a fundamental point. Hence matters pertaining to the sacraments are not adiaphora whereby each can believe whatever he wishes without any detriment to his faith. For not every kind of opinion regarding Christ or faith is correct, but only that teaching which lays hold on the promise of grace as it has been taught. But he who in opposition to this foundation commits an error, he has lost his faith and the grace of God. A false or heretical faith is not true faith but is contending against the foundation.
2. The loss of faith takes place when he who had been born again permits himself to take an action contrary to conscience and is not desirous of receiving remission in the Word and the sacraments. There are many who neglect the hearing Of the Word and the use of the sacraments, and they persuade themselves that they can still keep their faith and the forgiveness of their sins despite this. But they have shamefully blinded themselves. For when faith does not grow in sinners or exercise its own qualities, but rather degenerates into Epicurean impurity, how can it continue to exist or live in a man? This point can be easily demonstrated and understood. For it is the characteristic of true faith that it clings to the promise of the Gospel with a sound mind and a contrite heart, and in Christ seeks the remission of sins or deliverance from sin. Further, it is the fruit of true faith that it does not live in sin but in righteousness. Therefore, when a person constantly shuts off either of these elements, how can he retain true faith?
3. Faith also is lost when the mind without repentance conceives and adopts the opinion or persuasion that it wants to and can continue and keep on in sin, and yet nevertheless for the sake of Christ can have and keep the grace of God. It is manifest that such faith is not true faith. For faith in Christ does not seek to be able freely to practise sin against conscience and to pile up sins, but rather to be freed from them.
4. From the fruit we also can learn whether faith is true or false. The fruit of true faith is not to serve sin but to live unto righteousness. Likewise the corrupt fruits also show that the tree itself has become evil because of the loss of faith. From these basic ideas it is simple to judge when true faith has been lost and trodden under foot. Consequently when sins take place and are mortal, it means that faith has been lost and destroyed.
III. The third part of the definition refers to mortal sin, that is, that through mortal sin repentance is crushed and faith driven out, the Holy Spirit grieved and tormented, the grace of God along with the remission of sins and the inheritance of eternal life lost and the person is again guilty of the wrath of God, eternal death, and condemnation.
We have a very good example of this situation in Judas. He “denied the faith” from the beginning, as Paul says in 1 Tim. 5:8. Although in words he said that he believes, yet he begins to be forgetful of the blessings of God, 2 Peter 1:9, and afterwards he grieved the Holy Spirit who over and over again tried to lead him by His chastenings into the way of God’s commandments and to cause him to mortify his flesh. Because faith is the means whereby the grace of God and the inheritance of eternal life are retained, 1 Peter 1:5, therefore when faith is lost, the person cannot retain grace but falls again under the wrath of God which clearly follows the judgment of God.
IV. To this definition of mortal sin also pertains the part which asserts that it is mortal sin if a person does not through repentance come back to God. We need to add this part, so that this doctrine does not drive away those who have fallen into despair or the feeling that they are reprobate. But in order that those who have fallen may be called back to repentance, at the same time that the hope of reconciliation is shown to them, if they repent, at the same time there is also shown to them what kind of repentance is required for mortal sins. Rom. 2:4, “Do not despise the riches of His kindness, His patience and His forbearance which is meant to lead you to repentance.”

Correction @66, …just saying “the smallest of them” means I am categorizing specific sins into ones that I can continue unrepentantly and ones I can’t.

I found post 69 more helpful, actually. The point on mortal sins is pivotal being understood as the sins of the unregenerate. Moreover, the completion of the Augustinian progression from venial to mortal sin is not inconsequential. If you leave it at “The evil deed itself” you leave people in despair but there is a huge gap between the “evil deed” and “boasting and glorying in sin”, and yet again between this and the sin against the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, humans being human, they will always push the limits; some will push evil deeds to the limits of mortal danger and others will see mortal danger lurking behind every evil deed.

Franks, sorry, can you expand on how divine ordinances differs from natural desires?