Sins after Baptism

[weariedsoul]

A mortal sin would be something like murder, adultery, theft, and the like. In Catholicism, these require repentance and Confession. But there is no sin that can't be forgiven, if repented.

There is one.

 

[steve_bakr]

I find your understanding of mortal sin much more acceptable than the current Catholic take on it. Do you find yourself in disagreement with the Church in this regard?

I agree with your assessment of the choices being offered in this election. I think that many sincere Christians may abstain from voting because it is virtually impossible to determine which candidate would actually do the least harm. If voting for a candidate who supports actions that are sinful (abortion or outright heresy) do you think that one is thereby entering into their sin by supporting them? Personally, I do not think so.

In reading the Catechism and studying Thomas Aquinas, I realize how much influence he's had in regard to mortal sin as conceived by the Catholic Church today.

One determinant in his thinking on sin has to do with what he calls natural law, which he has adapted from Aristotle. The other determinant is Charity. Both of these concepts are seen in the Catechism.

If an act goes against natural law, then it goes against God's design, and thus destroys Charity. This is mortal sin, according to Aquinas.

The concept of Charity resonates pretty well with me. The question I have is whether the "natural law" paradigm is still as useful in the 21st century as it was in the 13th century. Do we not go against natural law when we perform surgery or administer antibiotics? All kinds of things in our lives can be said to go against natural law, and this is where the natural law argument seems to run into problems.

What we are left with is the concept of Charity. Aquinas and the Catechism say that a mortal sin is an act which destroys Charity. OK, so the question is, what kind of act is bad enough to destroy the Charity between ourselves and God?

What seems to be clear is that it has to be a deliberate act of rejecting God and his commandments. Pre-meditated murder, for example. The point is that I may commit venial sins, perhaps even daily. But it is going to be very difficult to do something that destroys that Charity that exists between myself and God.

What about this election? Last election cycle, the teaching was this: So long as your vote for someone who is pro-abortion is on account of other issues and not abortion itself, you are not in mortal sin. That seems to make sense to me.

There is another aspect in this area, which is one of the most controversial in Catholic theology today--What is the role of conscience and its relationship to the Church's teachings?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What is apostasy? Is it turning ones back on God, or is it found in disobedience, or believing in a false gospel/doctrine?

Apostasy is the sin committed by one who knows the gospel, believes it, and then freely, knowingly, and willfully abandons the gospel and the Lord.

Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.

 

[weariedsoul]

Apostasy is the sin committed by one who knows the gospel, believes it, and then freely, knowingly, and willfully abandons the gospel and the Lord.

Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.

Thanks. I looked up the definition but it didnt specify it well enough..

 

[bbbbbbb]

In reading the Catechism and studying Thomas Aquinas, I realize how much influence he's had in regard to mortal sin as conceived by the Catholic Church today.

One determinant in his thinking on sin has to do with what he calls natural law, which he has adapted from Aristotle. The other determinant is Charity. Both of these concepts are seen in the Catechism.

If an act goes against natural law, then it goes against God's design, and thus destroys Charity. This is mortal sin, according to Aquinas. An example that can be seen in the Catechism is its treatment of certain sexual acts, such as non-reproductive sex.

The concept of Charity resonates pretty well with me. The question I have is whether the "natural law" paradigm is still as useful in the 21st century as it was in the 13th century. Do we not go against natural law when we perform surgery or administer antibiotics? All kinds of things in our lives can be said to go against natural law, and this is where the natural law argument seems to run into problems.

What we are left with is the concept of Charity. Aquinas and the Catechism say that a mortal sin is an act which destroys Charity. OK, so the question is, what kind of act is bad enough to destroy the Charity between ourselves and God?

What I come up with is that it has to be a deliberate act of rejecting God. Pre-meditated murder, for example. The point is that I may commit venial sins, perhaps even daily. But it is going to be very difficult to do something that destroys that Charity that exists between myself and God.

What about this election? Last election cycle, the teaching was this: So long as your vote for someone who is pro-abortion is on account of other issues and not abortion itself, you are not in mortal sin. That seems to make sense to me.

Please let me know if there is something I didn't cover in answering your questions. There is another aspect in this area, which is one of the most controversial in Catholic theology today--What is the role of conscience and its relationship to the Church's teachings?

BTW, I just wanted you to know--I do go to Confession.

Thank you for addressing my questions and comments. I would have been quite surprised if you did not go to Confession.

I maintain that God's charity is infinite and impossible for Him to break. Thus, we have the statement by Jesus Christ that I quoted previously from John 10. Our charity, by comparison, is hopelessly inadequate and, were it up to us, could be broken. Does God permit us to sever His charity toward us or do we allow God to maintain His charity towards us?

As for the political election I was aware of the Catholic teaching regarding the role of conscience. It makes informed decisions incredibly difficult in this election IMO.

 

[Standing Up]

Thank you for addressing my questions and comments. I would have been quite surprised if you did not go to Confession.

I maintain that God's charity is infinite and impossible for Him to break. Thus, we have the statement by Jesus Christ that I quoted previously from John 10. Our charity, by comparison, is hopelessly inadequate and, were it up to us, could be broken. Does God permit us to sever His charity toward us or do we allow God to maintain His charity towards us?

As for the political election I was aware of the Catholic teaching regarding the role of conscience. It makes informed decisions incredibly difficult in this election IMO.

Remember the story about God giving David 3 choices for punishment? He chose God's for that very reason.

 

[Giver]

In reading the Catechism and studying Thomas Aquinas, I realize how much influence he's had in regard to mortal sin as conceived by the Catholic Church today.

One determinant in his thinking on sin has to do with what he calls natural law, which he has adapted from Aristotle. The other determinant is Charity. Both of these concepts are seen in the Catechism.

If an act goes against natural law, then it goes against God's design, and thus destroys Charity. This is mortal sin, according to Aquinas.

The concept of Charity resonates pretty well with me. The question I have is whether the "natural law" paradigm is still as useful in the 21st century as it was in the 13th century. Do we not go against natural law when we perform surgery or administer antibiotics? All kinds of things in our lives can be said to go against natural law, and this is where the natural law argument seems to run into problems.

What we are left with is the concept of Charity. Aquinas and the Catechism say that a mortal sin is an act which destroys Charity. OK, so the question is, what kind of act is bad enough to destroy the Charity between ourselves and God?

What seems to be clear is that it has to be a deliberate act of rejecting God and his commandments. Pre-meditated murder, for example. The point is that I may commit venial sins, perhaps even daily. But it is going to be very difficult to do something that destroys that Charity that exists between myself and God.

What about this election? Last election cycle, the teaching was this: So long as your vote for someone who is pro-abortion is on account of other issues and not abortion itself, you are not in mortal sin. That seems to make sense to me.

There is another aspect in this area, which is one of the most controversial in Catholic theology today--What is the role of conscience and its relationship to the Church's teachings?

Steve, you asked in your OP for people to use scripture to back one’s opinion. Yet you only use man’s opinion to back your Post.

Would you do yourself a favor and address the scriptures I used to confirm my opinion?

 

[steve_bakr]

Steve, you asked in your OP for people to use scripture to back one’s opinion. Yet you only use man’s opinion to back your Post.

Would you do yourself a favor and address the scriptures I used to confirm my opinion?

Sorry, I thought that I did address them. I even checked three commentaries, including the massive tome of Matthew Henry's. But tell me which I didn't address, and I will try to do that this morning.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Steve I would like to share something with you. Mortal sin is death is that not right?

No, it isn't right; mortal sin leads to death but it is not in and of itself death.

In the Early Church people knew that if one knew God and deliberately sinned, there would be no repentance. (Acts 5:1-11) The Fraud of Ananias and Sapphira imprinted that truth into them.

Ananias and Sapphira died but there is no clear indication in the passage that died without repentance although I do admit that their lie was not fully repented of.

John knew this and that is why he said: (1 John 3:5-6) “Now you know that he appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him or known him.”

The immediate context is this:

Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness. You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him. Children, let no one deceive you. The person who acts in righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God. In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:4-10)​

It is not a single sin but habitual sin that characterises a child of the devil and it is not a single act of obedience but habitual obedience that characterises a child of God. That is what John is teaching. Do you agree?

People don’t realize that once one comes to know God he or she will not sin. A person who knows God has told God, by, his or her actions, living the whole Word of God as guided by the Holy Spirit. When a person who knows God, and is a temple of God then that person if they deliberately sin are committing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and that sin is unforgivable.

(Hebrews 10:26-31) “If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There is left only the dreadful prospect of judgment and of the fiery wrath that is to devour your enemies. Anyone who disregards the Law of Moses is ruthlessly put to death on the word of two witnesses or three; and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment. We are all aware who it was that said: Vengeance is mine; I will vindicate his people. It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Seems to me that the passage in Hebrews is about apostasy. That is why it says, "you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment". A person who completely repudiates christianity cannot flee to some other sacrifice for forgiveness and there's no law by which such a person can be forgiven so unless and until they humble themselves and repent of apostasy, returning to Christ, asking for his mercy, and receiving grace again they can expect no forgiveness in this world or the next.

 

[steve_bakr]

No, it isn't right; mortal sin leads to death but it is not in and of itself death.

Ananias and Sapphira died but there is no clear indication in the passage that died without repentance although I do admit that their lie was not fully repented of.The immediate context is this:Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness. You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him. Children, let no one deceive you. The person who acts in righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God. In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:4-10)It is not a single sin but habitual sin that characterises a child of the devil and it is not a single act of obedience but habitual obedience that characterises a child of God. That is what John is teaching. Do you agree?

Seems to me that the passage in Hebrews is about apostasy. That is why it says, "you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment". A person who completely repudiates christianity cannot flee to some other sacrifice for forgiveness and there's no law by which such a person can be forgiven so unless and until they humble themselves and repent of apostasy, returning to Christ, asking for his mercy, and receiving grace again they can expect no forgiveness in this world or the next.

Thanks, MoreCoffee. I agree with your explication of those Scriptures.

 

[Giver]

Sorry, I thought that I did address them. I even checked three commentaries, including the massive tome of Matthew Henry's. But tell me which I didn't address, and I will try to do that this morning.

(Acts 5:1-11) The Fraud of Ananias and Sapphira imprinted that truth into them. Explain this using scripture.

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3) “Brothers, I myself was unable to speak to you as people of the Spirit; I treated you as sensual men, still infants in Christ. What I fed you with was milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it; and indeed, you are still not ready for it since you are still unspiritual. Isn’t that obvious from all the jealousy and wrangling that there is among you, from the way that you go on behaving like ordinary people?” Explain Paul’s statement that if one in not spiritual they will sin, and at best are infants in Christ?

(1 John 3:9) “No one, who has been begotten by God sins; because God’s seed remains inside him, he cannot sin when he has been begotten by God.” Show us how John is wrong by saying one can’t sin if God’s seed remains in him or her?

Now don’t use man’s commentary that man has come up with to discard God’s Word, use scripture to show how these verses don’t mean what they say.

 

[steve_bakr]

(Acts 5:1-11) The Fraud of Ananias and Sapphira imprinted that truth into them. Explain this using scripture.

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3) “Brothers, I myself was unable to speak to you as people of the Spirit; I treated you as sensual men, still infants in Christ. What I fed you with was milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it; and indeed, you are still not ready for it since you are still unspiritual. Isn’t that obvious from all the jealousy and wrangling that there is among you, from the way that you go on behaving like ordinary people?” Explain Paul’s statement that if one in not spiritual they will sin, and at best are infants in Christ?

(1 John 3:9) “No one, who has been begotten by God sins; because God’s seed remains inside him, he cannot sin when he has been begotten by God.” Show us how John is wrong by saying one can’t sin if God’s seed remains in him or her?

Now don’t use man’s commentary that man has come up with to discard God’s Word, use scripturto show how these verses don’t mean what they say.

Where I am at the moment, I neither have printed Bible nor commentary, but I believe that commentary is wise, especially several commentaries to compare with.

Ananias and Saphira held back half their proceeds and died for it. For the theology, I would check the commentaries.

The Corinthians were baby Christians subject to various temptations, so Paul was teaching them the fundamentals of Christianity--ie., "Christ crucified."

Regarding 1John 3:9, I think MoreCoffee has given the best explanation--that the passage is addressing habitual sin.

Once again, it's best to know what the commentaries say, so you will have a better perspective. Matthew Henry's is a thorough Protestant commentary. As I told you, I have several, both Protestant and Catholic. I think it's unwise to interpret Scripture on your own. It can lead you into error.

 

[weariedsoul]

Where I am at the moment, I neither have printed Bible nor commentary, but I believe that commentary is wise, especially several commentaries to compare with.

Ananias and Saphira held back half their proceeds and died for it. For the theology, I would check the commentaries.

The Corinthians were baby Christians subject to various temptations, so Paul was teaching them the fundamentals of Christianity--ie., "Christ crucified."

Regarding 1John 3:9, I think MoreCoffee has given the best explanation--that the passage is addressing habitual sin.

Once again, it's best to know what the commentaries say, so you will have a better perspective. Matthew Henry's is a thorough Protestant commentary. As I told you, I have several, both Protestant and Catholic. I think it's unwise to interpret Scripture on your own. It can lead you into error.

Hmm...

It depends i think. I have yet to have anyone show serious err im my limited theology. I dont understand all mysteries but i understand how to follow the lord as well as the next guy. So the Spirit and scriptures must be enough to teach me how to follow Christ.

 

[steve_bakr]

Hmm...

It depends i think. I have yet to have anyone show serious err im my limited theology. I dont understand all mysteries but i understand how to follow the lord as well as the next guy. So the Spirit and scriptures must be enough to teach me how to follow Christ.

Well, I wasn't addressing you specifically, but I do think it's wise for anyone to have some Bible commentary to supplement our own understaning. Why wouldn't we?

You may not be in any error; I wouldn't assume that you were. I am specifically concerned with some of the ideas that another poster has expressed.

 

[weariedsoul]

Well, I wasn't addressing you specifically, but I do think it's wise for anyone to have some Bible commentary to supplement our own understaning. Why wouldn't we?

You may not be in any error; I wouldn't assume that you were. I am specifically concerned with some of the ideas that another poster has expressed.

Its cool, i just wanted to say that. I wasn't disagreeing with commentary though.

 

[Giver]

Where I am at the moment, I neither have printed Bible nor commentary, but I believe that commentary is wise, especially several commentaries to compare with.

Ananias and Saphira held back half their proceeds and died for it. For the theology, I would check the commentaries.

The Corinthians were baby Christians subject to various temptations, so Paul was teaching them the fundamentals of Christianity--ie., "Christ crucified."

Regarding 1John 3:9, I think MoreCoffee has given the best explanation--that the passage is addressing habitual sin.

Once again, it's best to know what the commentaries say, so you will have a better perspective. Matthew Henry's is a thorough Protestant commentary. As I told you, I have several, both Protestant and Catholic. I think it's unwise to interpret Scripture on your own. It can lead you into error.

John tells us that if one sins he or she is of the devil. Have any of your teacher about God been sin free? If your teachers about God sinned then you were taught about God by the devil, and that is scripture.

(1 John 3:8) “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”

Satan has blinded people to such a point that the truth seems impossible for most people to see.

There are people who say they love Jesus, but continue to sin. If one loves someone it would seem that he or she would do everything possible to never hurt the one they love.

Jesus gave his people, those who love him, the power to never sin. Yet people will continue to sin, and believe they love Jesus?

Steve I asked you to use scripture to explain the verses I quoted, and all I get is other people’s opinion.

You even you a poster on the forum personal opinion and that poster needed to add words to the written Word of God to make it a false Word.

(1 John 3:9) “No one, who has been begotten by God sins; because God’s seed remains inside him, he cannot sin when he has been begotten by God.”

Can you find the word habitual in the above verse? Do you know what scripture says about those who change the Word of God?
(1 John 2:6) “But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did”

 

[steve_bakr]

Its cool, i just wanted to say that. I wasn't disagreeing with commentary though.

 

[Giver]

Where I am at the moment, I neither have printed Bible nor commentary, but I believe that commentary is wise, especially several commentaries to compare with.

Ananias and Saphira held back half their proceeds and died for it. For the theology, I would check the commentaries.

The Corinthians were baby Christians subject to various temptations, so Paul was teaching them the fundamentals of Christianity--ie., "Christ crucified."

Regarding 1John 3:9, I think MoreCoffee has given the best explanation--that the passage is addressing habitual sin.

Once again, it's best to know what the commentaries say, so you will have a better perspective. Matthew Henry's is a thorough Protestant commentary. As I told you, I have several, both Protestant and Catholic. I think it's unwise to interpret Scripture on your own. It can lead you into error.

(1 John 2:27) “But you have not lost the anointing that he gave you, and you do not need anyone to teach you, the anointing he gave teaches you everything; you are anointed with truth, not a lie, and as it has taught you, so you must stay in him.”

 

[steve_bakr]

John tells us that if one sins he or she is of the devil. Have any of your teacher about God been sin free? If your teachers about God sinned then you were taught about God by the devil, and that is scripture.

(1 John 3:8) “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work”

Satan has blinded people to such a point that the truth seems impossible for most people to see.

There are people who say they love Jesus, but continue to sin. If one loves someone it would seem that he or she would do everything possible to never hurt the one they love.

Jesus gave his people, those who love him, the power to never sin. Yet people will continue to sin, and believe they love Jesus?

Steve I asked you to use scripture to explain the verses I quoted, and all I get is other people’s opinion.

You even you a poster on the forum personal opinion and that poster needed to add words to the written Word of God to make it a false Word.

(1 John 3:9) “No one, who has been begotten by God sins; because God’s seed remains inside him, he cannot sin when he has been begotten by God.”

Can you find the word habitual in the above verse? Do you know what scripture says about those who change the Word of God?
(1 John 2:6) “But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did”

Since I'm not at home right now, I would give you 1John 1:9,

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

I also rely on the teaching of my Church.

BTW, I now must recharge my phone, as I use ForumRunner.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Remember the story about God giving David 3 choices for punishment? He chose God's for that very reason.

Yes, thank you for reminding me.