Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
In any case, the real question IMO concerns what faith is meant to effect or result in within us: how, exactly, it justifies us.

I think what faith is mean to effect in is are the fruits of the Holy Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. And perhaps justification by faith does this because it enables us to feel that we are right with God even though we are still imperfect. We get assurance that we are a loved member of God's family and the confidence that we get from this gives us a good foundation to achieve our potential, similar to how a child who feels accepted and loved has every chance of developing into a loving and well-behaved person - she will feel motivated to grow in this way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think what faith is mean to effect in is are the fruits of the Holy Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. And perhaps justification by faith does this because it enables us to feel that we are right with God even though we are still imperfect. We get assurance that we are a loved member of God's family and the confidence that we get from this gives us a good foundation to achieve our potential, similar to how a child who feels accepted and loved has every chance of developing into a loving and well-behaved person - she will feel motivated to grow in this way.
Alright, and “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control“ describe real righteousness received, by virtue of the fellowship with God realized by faith. We’re made righteous-we’re justified-even if more yet can be attained, maturing in our faith with grace leading to more grace as we act on and respond to it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Alright, and “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control“ describe real righteousness received, by virtue of the fellowship with God realized by faith. We’re made righteous-we’re justified-even if more yet can be attained, maturing in our faith with grace leading to more grace as we act on and respond to it.

I agree. We're always going to be imperfect but if we know or believe that we are perfectly loved and unconditionally accepted by God as His children we'll naturally respond and grow in love and obedience.

I guess it's possible to experience God's love but still reject Him, in effect saying that you no longer wish to be His child and determinedly reject the vocation of reflecting His image to the world. Hopefully not many do though.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I need to take responsibility first and foremost for those things that I can understand myself to be responsible for.
I think this happens anyway. If you have made your bed, you are going to have to sleep in it. Culpability is another thing entirely, as we see with things like legal manslaughter or negligence. Today, this goes even farther with ideas such as privilege or carbon footprints - ascribed at least, even if we can debate the validity thereof. Regardless, I take your point that it should primarily apply to our direct acts, but if we are talking about the terminal ends of such acts, I don't think it can be solely applied. But, as you note, we need to draw a line somewhere, perhaps - that is, if we are to keep a distinction between severity.
I mostly just meant that morality ought to criticize the badness of the moral act under the aspect of volitional faults such as malice or selfishness rather than under the aspect of unintended consequences. The fault could also lie in undue proportion, inconsiderateness, overstepping, etc. I think some of that can be reduced to selfishness, but maybe not all of it. I agree that malice is not the only possible problem. I realize that doesn't altogether answer your point, but malice is slippery. We can talk about it more if you'd like.
I think that would go too far off field to discuss malice, but the idea of volitional faults has the issue that we commit a fault expecting certain results. If those results are not entirely what we expected, that is unintended - but there is a world of difference between potential consequence we should have known, or did have awareness of and judged worth the risk; and those that were truly unknown. Most acts don't occur exactly according to our volition, but we still bear some culpability. I think the crowds baying for Jesus' blood is an excellent example, as I have always extended that culpability to humanity in general - even and especially unto us Christians when we sin, as our Scapegoat.
I agree that scripture is confusing on the question of individual culpability, but I am not aware of a strong case for the degree of corporate culpability that holds an unborn descendent responsible for the sin of his ancestor. There are also notable scriptural counter-examples to such an approach (e.g. Ezekiel 18:20). Anyway, I'm worried that this topic could take us too far afield.
Agreed, although Romans 5 springs to mind, too. But yes, I think we are judged by our own sins, but I am not sure that we don't bear inherited sin until taken by Christ.
That's true, and I think that is the beauty of the passages of literature you are citing. I think either approach can be taken too far (individual and corporate). Dostoevsky's principle can even be twisted to induce selfishness, namely when the person borders on solipsism and refuses to grant autonomy and a share in culpability to others. That is to say, there is also humility in accepting that others make choices which you have no control over. A classic example would be the small child who blames themselves for their parents' divorce. I think there needs to be a balance, but these are interesting and difficult questions.
Yes, an excellent point. The child of divorce is a good image to hold in mind before we go and lay all strife at our own door. Even Fortune plays a role, as to what opportunity to sin presents itself.
I think some of this can be reconciled by saying that the human approach to morality and sin is necessarily limited and therefore a line must be drawn somewhere. I think intentionality is a good place to start for marking out that line. We try to identify, avoid, and repent of sin the best we can, and it will be imperfect. It is likely that Dostoevsky saw a truth in the depths of reality, but I think we need to be careful about how we appropriate and incorporate that truth into our own understanding. Perhaps the Russian discovered an exceedingly sharp sword, but I don't believe that everyone is meant to handle it--particularly the shoddy swordsmen
Yes, that is a very good point. I often feel that certain writers almost verge on latter-day prophets, and the thing about prophets are the ease of misunderstanding or excess. I take this an idea that is best expressed in story or parable, that we lose sight of and get mired in detail, when we try and explicate it - not unlike much Biblical material and myth. This is perhaps why Doestoyevsky has such counterpoint to it, such as Zosima's corpse smelling or that Dimitry seems almost delirious after his dream of the wasted babies and their mothers. The Buddhists have a saying of 'having to ride back into town on the ox' after heavy metaphysical talk, and it is easier to focus on your direct action and consequence.

The other important thing to remember is that for Catholics all human acts (basically everything we do with some degree of intention) is a moral act. So turning on your windshield wipers is a moral act. Now failing or forgetting to turn on your windshield wipers when it is raining is dumb, contrary to reason, life-endangering to a small degree, etc. Yet it is not contrary to the divine law in any direct way. Therefore it is a venial sin. That's a strange example, but it may be that the Catholic understanding of moral action requires the mortal/venial distinction more than a theory which considers the vast majority of acts morally neutral.
That is quite a different way to think of things. 'No morally neutral acts'. Makes a lot of sense though, as everything has some moral dimension. For instance, wearing clothes made in a sweatshop; or in Medicine, using knowledge gained by dubious means (Nazi hypothermia experiments spring to mind).

But does it not bring to the fore the question of the Natural Law being different from the Divine Law? If an act is contrary to reason, ie Natural morality, shouldn't this also be contrary to God, the fount of both Reason and Morality, or the Good in Augustine's sense? Or are we dealing more with the human expression of it, where we get stuck on the letter of the Law instead of the spirit?

Unless, we consider Natural Law corrupted by the Fall, but I think that hinders more than it helps the discussion.

Anyway, very interesting points you make.

Glancing at the Summa, Thomas classes theft as generically mortal (link). Your objection is represented in the third objection. I don't know if you've read much of Thomas, but his response to the third objection is fairly clear so I won't try to reproduce it here.
No, I haven't read much of Aquinas directly; mostly by way of other authors. It is a deficit I keep wanting to correct, but have not done so as yet. A bit daunting, on account of reputation, but I feel akin to a schoolboy caught out that I haven't done my homework.

Hmm... I mean, they could certainly argue it venial. If proper authorities convince someone that abortion is a small matter and they commit abortion then they are acting with confused knowledge and the severity of sin will be mitigated, perhaps even to become venial. I realize some Catholics would begrudge me saying it, but the severity of the infringement can never override the principles that regard knowledge and consent. There is perhaps an example of this during the supremely grave sin of deicide, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do..."
Thank you for the excellent discussion. I agree the answer of Jesus on the Cross is very apt here. I have heard it often said that we might be quite surprised when we see who ended up in Heaven, and certainly the situation around a sin must be important to judging it.


Anyway, the idea of placing the entirety of existence on a moral plain, does again make me think of Doestoyevsky's principle and Lewis' juxtaposition. I really think this is just another instance of the Catholic impulse to reify, and the Protestant reticence to do so. We all intuitively agree certain acts appear more heinous; and while Catholics would name them and figure out how and in what way this is the case, we Protestants rather get distracted on the implications we see and thus end up talking about the Elect, Grace and trust in God and the like. The first ends in concrete attempts at penance, and the latter in a statements of forgiveness or rest in Christ - the potential decline into superstition or self-excusing platitudes respectively is clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Would a believer commit murder?
When a soldier or law enforcement officer kills someone, is it murder?

On what basis? The eyes of God, or the eyes of man?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I don’t think this directly addresses the issue though. While also in Catholicism faith is commonly used in the way you’ve described, it’s true that the formal historical dogmatic teachings view faith as “intellectual consent”. But the virtue of hope, instead, is taught to actually be that disposition by which a believer places their trust and confidence in God and His promises based on the revelation, the words and deeds, of Christ.

There is an old and venerable Catholic position which sees faith as belief in God rather than in propositions, though propositions are included in a secondary manner. Aquinas says that, "If the object of faith be considered in so far as the intellect is moved by the will, an act of faith is 'to believe in God.'" Also, "Now the act of believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command of the will moved by the grace of God." That is, it is belief in God qua truth--insofar as God is truth itself. (Summa Theologiae: The Act of Faith; see also: Whether the Object of Faith is Propositional)

In recent years we have fallen away from this understanding to some extent. Avery Cardinal Dulles made this point in his article, "Faith and Its Contents." Romanus Cessario analyses the history of the issue further in his review of Dulles' book on faith.
 
Upvote 0

lismore

Maranatha
Oct 28, 2004
20,671
4,354
Scotland
✟242,556.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
When a soldier or law enforcement officer kills someone, is it murder?

Hello Michael, That would perhaps depend on the circumstances. Soldiers of all nationalities in war have been ordered to kill unarmed civilians, non-combatants, even children and babies. I would say this is murder. But in self-defence it is surely different. God Bless :)
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Hello Michael, That would perhaps depend on the circumstances. Soldiers of all nationalities in war have been ordered to kill unarmed civilians, non-combatants, even children and babies. I would say this is murder. But in self-defence it is surely different. God Bless :)
I guess that's your answer to whether a believer would commit murder.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I think this happens anyway. If you have made your bed, you are going to have to sleep in it. Culpability is another thing entirely, as we see with things like legal manslaughter or negligence. Today, this goes even farther with ideas such as privilege or carbon footprints - ascribed at least, even if we can debate the validity thereof. Regardless, I take your point that it should primarily apply to our direct acts, but if we are talking about the terminal ends of such acts, I don't think it can be solely applied. But, as you note, we need to draw a line somewhere, perhaps - that is, if we are to keep a distinction between severity.

That sounds about right, and we have to draw a line not only on the basis of severity, but also on the basis of sanity. Hence the difference between manslaughter and murder.

I think that would go too far off field to discuss malice, but the idea of volitional faults has the issue that we commit a fault expecting certain results. If those results are not entirely what we expected, that is unintended - but there is a world of difference between potential consequence we should have known, or did have awareness of and judged worth the risk; and those that were truly unknown. Most acts don't occur exactly according to our volition, but we still bear some culpability. I think the crowds baying for Jesus' blood is an excellent example, as I have always extended that culpability to humanity in general - even and especially unto us Christians when we sin, as our Scapegoat.

Agreed, although Romans 5 springs to mind, too. But yes, I think we are judged by our own sins, but I am not sure that we don't bear inherited sin until taken by Christ.

Yes, an excellent point. The child of divorce is a good image to hold in mind before we go and lay all strife at our own door. Even Fortune plays a role, as to what opportunity to sin presents itself.

Yes, good points. I agree.

Yes, that is a very good point. I often feel that certain writers almost verge on latter-day prophets, and the thing about prophets are the ease of misunderstanding or excess. I take this an idea that is best expressed in story or parable, that we lose sight of and get mired in detail, when we try and explicate it - not unlike much Biblical material and myth. This is perhaps why Doestoyevsky has such counterpoint to it, such as Zosima's corpse smelling or that Dimitry seems almost delirious after his dream of the wasted babies and their mothers. The Buddhists have a saying of 'having to ride back into town on the ox' after heavy metaphysical talk, and it is easier to focus on your direct action and consequence.

Indeed. I wouldn't want to deny the value of Dostoevsky's insight, but the mortal/venial distinction is really a systematic one, and it's not immediately obvious how to reconcile those two different modes of assertion.

That is quite a different way to think of things. 'No morally neutral acts'. Makes a lot of sense though, as everything has some moral dimension. For instance, wearing clothes made in a sweatshop; or in Medicine, using knowledge gained by dubious means (Nazi hypothermia experiments spring to mind).

Yeah, I think it does make sense once you get a good look at it.

But does it not bring to the fore the question of the Natural Law being different from the Divine Law? If an act is contrary to reason, ie Natural morality, shouldn't this also be contrary to God, the fount of both Reason and Morality, or the Good in Augustine's sense? Or are we dealing more with the human expression of it, where we get stuck on the letter of the Law instead of the spirit?

I think the relation of morality to reason is a fascinating one, but the traditional Catholic approach is to say that the Natural Law is both accessible to reason and measured against reason, and is a subset of the Divine Law. That is, everything which is against the Natural Law is also against God, but there are additional, revealed laws, which God gives, and these are not accessible to reason. So yes, if an act is contrary to reason it is contrary to God.

Unless, we consider Natural Law corrupted by the Fall, but I think that hinders more than it helps the discussion.

For someone like Aquinas the Fall would definitely affect our access to the Natural Law.

No, I haven't read much of Aquinas directly; mostly by way of other authors. It is a deficit I keep wanting to correct, but have not done so as yet. A bit daunting, on account of reputation, but I feel akin to a schoolboy caught out that I haven't done my homework.

Haha, fair enough. As Rowan Williams says, "Reading the Summa is an enterprise '...not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly' as the Book of Common Prayer says about another complicated undertaking." :D

Here is the quote regarding petty theft:

Objection 3. Further, theft can be committed in small even as in great things. But it seems unreasonable for a man to be punished with eternal death for the theft of a small thing such as a needle or a quill. Therefore theft is not a mortal sin.

Reply to Objection 3. Reason accounts as nothing that which is little: so that a man does not consider himself injured in very little matters: and the person who takes such things can presume that this is not against the will of the owner. And if a person take such like very little things, he may be proportionately excused from mortal sin. Yet if his intention is to rob and injure his neighbor, there may be a mortal sin even in these very little things, even as there may be through consent in a mere thought.​

Thank you for the excellent discussion. I agree the answer of Jesus on the Cross is very apt here. I have heard it often said that we might be quite surprised when we see who ended up in Heaven, and certainly the situation around a sin must be important to judging it.

Thanks for your input. I'm sure there will be a great many surprises!

Anyway, the idea of placing the entirety of existence on a moral plain, does again make me think of Doestoyevsky's principle and Lewis' juxtaposition. I really think this is just another instance of the Catholic impulse to reify, and the Protestant reticence to do so. We all intuitively agree certain acts appear more heinous; and while Catholics would name them and figure out how and in what way this is the case, we Protestants rather get distracted on the implications we see and thus end up talking about the Elect, Grace and trust in God and the like. The first ends in concrete attempts at penance, and the latter in a statements of forgiveness or rest in Christ - the potential decline into superstition or self-excusing platitudes respectively is clear.

Where would you want to place Dostoevsky on that spectrum?
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I see no contradiction. But I do not look for ways in which the impossible can be made possible.

Those striving for perfection, look not for ways by which they can continue to be imperfect.

Those born of God cannot commit sin.....period.

Believers, I agree, can......yet I still find little reason to put their sins in categories.
Interesting. Most interesting indeed.

So if you go out tomorrow and rape, steal, murder, entertain a lustful thought, or lie, etc., that would not be a sin, in your opinion? What would you categorize them as, if not sin?

Or is it your assertion that since you became a Christian, you have never done a single act that most Christians would typically categorize as sin?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Where would you want to place Dostoevsky on that spectrum?
Ideally, we all should have tension between them, as we need to have real-life forms of the concepts - prayers to pray - as much as the more spiritual form. Take CS Lewis, the author of the distinction, who is often mistaken as being very high church, while repeatedly speaking about the danger of erecting your own god and declaring it to be God. Some Church administration or forms of discipline or creeds are very much a necessity, or the tradition will dissipate. I think the best of all embody this tension: thinking here of people like Francis of Assisi, who critiques the worldliness, but founds an Order and endows churches and chapels; or the Cluniac Gregory VII, who fights for the spirituality of the Church, yet becomes the poster-child of Church-Imperial tension; or Thomas More or Erasmus with their renaissance humanism, but support for the established Church. Humans are flesh, and the breath of God needs to be incarnated for us to understand it. I see the need for myth and story in much the same light, to not explicitly make it concrete as then you substantially miss the point as often as not - as happens with many Trinitarian and Incarnational disputes in my opinion.

Doestoyevsky is another such figure. He was a worldly writer with a gambling problem, but he spent a lot of time with certain monks. His writings reflect this, and this tension. Think of atheist Ivan who wrote the piece on how the Church was to absorb the State in Brothers Karamazov, which the one priest endorses - but the implication is this is the death of the Church, coming from the pen of Ivan, but it seems reasonable in the way he frames it. In many ways, it reflects how Marxism did become a Church-State, which ultimately thus failed even the Marxist ideals in the Soviet system. Ippolit in The Idiot serves a similar function, as an attempt to make too concrete - or even Myshkin and Rogoshin, who are ultimately mirror images and both devout. The Spiritual Myshkin cannot function in the world and starts and ends up mad, and the worldly Rogoshin ends ups only suffering for it. I don't know if I am pushing the metaphor too far, but both play their hand in the death of their bride Nastasya. All of this in addition to the tension in Karamazov of Ferrapont and Zosima, or Devils where the empty Stavrogin acts as the central hope of a whole score of idealists, and Father Tikhon ultimately does not give him what he seeks. Or the famous Grand Inquisitor story, again by Ivan, who condemns Jesus and will execute Him as His ways are too hard, yet releases Him anyway after He kissed him.

The point is not where one lies on the spectrum, but that you should not allow too much movement to either side, lest you end up a Pharisee or an Essene. Perhaps depending on your needs, you should oscillate within it like a pressure guage in a dynamic system. I think the Eucharist embodies this quite well, real food for Real Food, flesh for Flesh, symbol and allegory and embodiment (although that is whole other level of Christian disagreement). Doestoyevsky understands far more than I think I ever will, I sometimes feel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Yesha

Westminster Standards
Jun 25, 2007
231
54
Connecticut
✟17,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I think you give a strained exegesis here. Making 16b completely distinct from 16a is a strange reading of the text. As I see it, this is the logic of the text: "If you see your brother sinning and the sin is not deadly, then pray and he will be given life. If the sin is deadly then do not pray for him." The idea that 16b refers to a completely different object than 16a makes the text strangely disjointed, as if their juxtaposition is entirely coincidental. That is, you are claiming on the basis of an argument from silence that 16b refers not to a "brother" but to an outsider, an unbeliever, the unrepentant, etc. I think it is an undue warping of the text, particularly when the entire chapter is centered on believers (apart from 10b and 12b).

zippy, I think the interpretation I offered is bolstered when examining the broader context of John’s first epistle and the themes he develops throughout. In the second chapter, John warns of the antichrists that have come into the community of believers only to fall away. He tells his audience that this happened because they were never “of us”, that is, of the body of true believers.

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. - 1 John 2:18-19 (ESV)

He goes on to define antichrist as one who rejects both Jesus as Christ and his Father.

22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. - John 2:22-23 (ESV)

He says that those who hold to what they “heard from the beginning” (the gospel, see 1 John 1:1-5) will receive eternal life. This is contrary to the antichrists who deny Christ and thereby his gospel. The latter do not have eternal life.

24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life. - 1 John 2:24-25 (ESV)

In the beginning of chapter 4, John states that anyone who denies Jesus as God has the spirit of antichrist in him. These people resist the doctrine of the church and have a “spirit of error” (1 John 4:6).

2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. - 1 John 4:2-3 (ESV)

John makes clear that all who believe in the Son have life. Conversely those who do not believe in the Son do not have life. These will be consumed by eternal death and punishment.

10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. - 1 John 5:10-12 (ESV)

Finally, in the conclusion to his epistle, John speaks of “sin not leading to death” and “sin that leads to death” (1 John 5:16-17). With the preceding passages having established the identify of antichrist and the sin of apostasy, and with this contrasted by those who hold fast to the faith, though they still sin (1 John 1:8), I think we can reason that the “sin that leads to death” is in reference to those who reject Christ and his gospel as evidenced by their walking away from the faith. John is clear that God is faithful toward those who confess their sins (1 John 1:9). But of those who impenitently deny Christ as savior? These are those who I believe commit sin that leads to death.

I found several commentaries which touch on this point and may be of interest to you.

Simon Kistemaker
“If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death.” When John writes “brother” in his epistle, he means a fellow believer. Whenever a member of the Christian community notices that a brother is falling into sin, he should pray to God on his behalf (compare James 5:20).

John distinguishes between “a sin that does not lead to death” and “a sin that leads to death.” In this passage he mentions the first kind three times and the second only once. He clearly implies that praying for the sinner who commits “a sin that does not lead to death” is the intent of his writing.

What is the meaning of the word death? In addition to 5:16, where it occurs three times, the word appears twice in 3:14: “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.” John is not thinking of physical death. Rather, he is referring to spiritual death. He contrasts death with eternal life (3:15) to set apart the believer, who possesses this life, from the person who denies that Jesus is the Son of God (2:22–23) and who hates the believer (3:13).

Who, then, commits the sin that leads to death? The person who rejects Jesus as the Christ and who does not love the believer commits this sin. He does not share in the fellowship of the Father and the Son (1:3), and is excluded from eternal life (4:12). He left the Christian community because he did not really belong to it (2:19). He had been a pretender.

[...]

“All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.” John calls attention to the seriousness of sin. “Sin is lawlessness” (3:4) and is always an affront to God. In fact, in the sight of God, sin is a transgression of his law and the person who “stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking” the whole law (James 2:10).

But not every sin leads to death. When a believer transgresses God’s law, he does not deny the sonship of Christ and hate the church. Moreover, God stands ready to forgive his sin. John teaches that “if we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1:9). God forgives sin when the sinner confesses and fellow Christians pray for him, for “God will give him life.”

Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953–2001). Exposition of James and the Epistles of John (Vol. 14, pp. 362-364). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

John Calvin
There is a sin unto death I have already said that the sin to which there is no hope of pardon left, is thus called. But it may be asked, what this is; for it must be very atrocious, when God thus so severely punishes it. It may be gathered from the context, that it is not, as they say, a partial fall, or a transgression of a single commandment, but apostasy, by which men wholly alienate themselves from God. For the Apostle afterwards adds, that the children of God do not sin, that is, that they do not forsake God, and wholly surrender themselves to Satan, to be his slaves. Such a defection, it is no wonder that it is mortal; for God never thus deprives his own people of the grace of the Spirit; but they ever retain some spark of true religion. They must then be reprobate and given up to destruction, who thus fall away so as to have no fear of God.

Matthew Henry
Then there are sins which, by divine constitution, are unto death; and that either death corporal or spiritual and evangelical. First, Such as are, or may be, to death corporal. Such may the sins be either of gross hypocrites, as Ananias and Sapphira, or, for aught we know, of sincere Christian brethren, as when the apostle says of the offending members of the church of Corinth, For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep, 1 Cor. xi. 30. There may be sin unto corporal death among those who may not be condemned with the world. Such sin, I said, is, or may be, to corporal death. The divine penal constitution in the gospel does not positively and peremptorily threaten death to the more visible sins of the members of Christ, but only some gospel-chastisement; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth, Heb. xii. 6. There is room left for divine wisdom or goodness, or even gospel severity, to determine how far the chastisement or the scourge shall proceed. And we cannot say but that sometimes it may (in terrorem—for warning to others) proceed even to death. Then, Secondly, 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. Such are total impenitence and unbelief for the present. Final impenitence and unbelief are infallibly to death eternal, as also a blaspheming of the Spirit of God in the testimony that he has given to Christ and his gospel, and a total apostasy from the light and convictive evidence of the truth of the Christian religion. These are sins involving the guilt of everlasting death.

Granted, 1 John is a polemical letter, and theology of "the elect" is probably at work in the background, but at the same time it is undeniable that the author distinguishes deadly from non-deadly sin in vv. 16-17.

I do not deny that John distinguishes “sins that do not lead to death” from “sin that leads to death”. I deny that “sin that leads to death” refers to sin that causes a true believer to fall outside of saving grace. I think it refers specifically to apostasy, which John identifies with antichrist in the letter.

In general I find it unproductive to argue with those who hold to OSAS because no matter what I say--and no matter what scripture is produced (e.g. Hebrews 6:4-6)--the answer is always, "Oh, those who fell away were not part of the Elect."

I am not among the OSAS camp because I believe it fails to teach the importance of genuine repentance in the process of sanctification. It gives people the impression that if they just say a sinner’s prayer at some point that they can then impenitently deny the gospel for the rest of their lives while their once-made statement counts to secure a salvation they had never received through faith. John identifies those people as antichrist who never possessed true faith.

It seems that your principle that the Elect never stumble and require repentance is both unfalsifiable and unScriptural. That is, scripture nowhere supports this doctrine of yours, even if for the sake of argument we posit that it nowhere denies it.

I do not believe I have said in this thread that the elect “never stumble and require repentance”. John’s point in 1 John 5:16 is to pray on behalf of those who do stumble! I’m taking issue with the notion that a true believer can fall from saving grace if they commit certain (mortal) sins.

Let me put this question to you: If scripture did teach mortal sin, what would it say? What would that teaching look like? (My guess is that your answer would be, "There is sin which, unrepented of, leads to death. The non-Elect will commit such sins and fall away. The Elect may commit such sins, but if they do, they will repent and be restored.")

zippy, I hold that Christ’s death satisfied the wrath of God against all sins of the elect. Thus, it would be impossible for one of the elect to commit a sin that would put him outside of God’s grace. I truly think that the issue here is that we have different views of the intent and extent of Christ’s atonement.
 
Upvote 0

Yesha

Westminster Standards
Jun 25, 2007
231
54
Connecticut
✟17,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Thank you- that was a thoughtful reply. And, yes, context is very important. And of course the author's intent is what we're looking for. My thought on these passages was that context didn't change the plain reading of them. I then offered other passages that corroborate or support that position in one manner or another.

Fair enough. I think “plain reading” will differ according to our understanding of the context which is why I appreciate your interpretation.

So...Romans 8:12-13 maintains that we must put to death the misdeeds of the flesh, i.e. overcome sin with the help of the Spirit (now available to the newly justified person as a result of God's indwelling, a relationship made possible via faith in response to grace). In context the passage comes across as an admonition, for an obligation required in order to gain eternal life. This is consistent with the other passages I listed later, as well as ancient church teachings.

I would agree with you that this passage is an admonition to deny the flesh and live to God by his Spirit. However, while I concur that Paul is speaking to our obligation to live holy lives, I do not think that he implies that such is “required in order to gain eternal life”, as he has previously spoken of justification by faith and the peace we have with God through Christ (Romans 5:1). Rather, I think Paul is referring to our sanctification which, while an act of the Holy Spirit, does not leave us void of personal responsibility.

Similarly 1 John 1:7 echoes the fact that God (Jesus) does the purifying (justifying) of man, both passages consistent also with the prophecy of Jer 31. And both passages make clear that this is contingent, on our participation.

I differ here in my interpretation. I do not think John is describing a contingency for our justification. John is saying that those who walk in the light have fellowship with believers and forgiveness with God. In other words, the evidence that one is walking in the light is that he is reconciled to God and the body of Christ, his church.
 
Upvote 0

Yesha

Westminster Standards
Jun 25, 2007
231
54
Connecticut
✟17,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Your fourth option is, of course, not Biblical as you claim. Can you provide any scripture that Christ died for "All sins of some men".

With all due respect, I put forward an effort to respond to your question in post #43 in which you asked: “Where's the biblical reference for that assertion? Christ died for all, not for a mystical "elect".” In return, you have not engaged with my exposition of John 6, 10, and 17 which were given as a defense of my proposition. I would genuinely appreciate your comments on those passages since they form an important foundation for the doctrine of definite atonement.

I'd be more interested in seeing a scriptural passage btw than another long exposition. I expect an exposition though because there is no such passage.

Friend, a hate to sound harsh here, but proof texting a major doctrine of scripture by a single verse is not how any reasonable theologian or student of the Bible advances an argument. If one seeks to rest a doctrine of Scripture on a Twitter-sized text, he arguably has no doctrine worthy of consideration.

The Bible say that Christ died for all, not an ill-defined "elect. Twist and make of that as you will.

I will restate what I said previously. I see four conceivable options regarding the atonement. Christ satisfied the wrath of God for:
  1. All sins of all men
  2. Some sins of all men
  3. Some sins of some men
  4. All sins of some men
Which of these, if any, do you hold to? Why so?
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
In return, you have not engaged with my exposition of John 6, 10, and 17 which were given as a defense of my proposition. I would genuinely appreciate your comments on those passages since they form an important foundation for the doctrine of definite atonement.

These are not passages but entire chapters. I can't possibly comment on the passages that you claim support the concept that Christ died for a limited "elect" and not for all unless you first say what these passages are. So, what are they?

Christ satisfied the wrath of God for:
  1. All sins of all men
  2. Some sins of all men
  3. Some sins of some men
  4. All sins of some men
Which of these, if any, do you hold to? Why so?

None of your options are satisfactory. They don't mention God's love, only his "wrath" which is obviously a complex word that has a lot of meanings and so has to be unpacked a bit for it to be in any way meaningful. Love needs to be mentioned because Christ's dying has to do with God himself acting out of his love for his people, ALL his people and not just a hypothesised favoured "Elect".

And, further, none of your options mention the part we play in our redemption. I don'tk know exactly what that is but I believe that we do have to make a response to God's love. We are creatures created with free will, designed to enter into a covenental relationship with God for our redemption, not passive robots who are predestined to either be saved or not to be saved. God is just, rational and loving.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yesha

Westminster Standards
Jun 25, 2007
231
54
Connecticut
✟17,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
These are not passages but entire chapters. I can't possibly comment on the passages that you claim support the concept that Christ died for a limited "elect" and not for all unless you first say what these passages are. So, what are they?

The passages I cited in post #48 are not entire chapters. These are the three sections I posted:
  1. John 6:37-40
  2. John 10:14-16, 25-29
  3. John 17:1-3, 6, 9-10, 20-24
The first two are concise enough to address. While I commented on selected parts of John 17, the whole chapter is invaluable. I understand why that may be a more of an intensive undertaking for now.

None of your options are satisfactory. They don't mention God's love, only his "wrath" which is obviously a complex word that has a lot of meanings and so has to be unpacked a bit for it to be in any way meaningful. Love needs to be mentioned because Christ's dying has to do with God himself acting out of his love for his people, ALL his people and not just a hypothesised favoured "Elect".

Calvary displayed the love of God for sinners in that Christ bore God's wrath (righteous indignation) against the sins of those who believe. I am particularly interested in what you understand Christ to have accomplished when he cried out on the cross, "It is finished" (John 19:30). I think that directs us toward the meaning of his atoning work.

If I might add, who do you understand the elect to be, Biblically (e.g., Romans 8:33)?

And, further, none of your options mention the part we play in our redemption. I don'tk know exactly what that is but I believe that we do have to make a response to God's love. We are creatures created with free will, designed to enter into a covenental relationship with God for our redemption, not passive robots who are predestined to either be saved or not to be saved. God is just, rational and loving.

It is by grace that we are saved through faith, not by our own doing or works (Ephesians 2:8-9). We play no role in our redemption. Christ alone redeems us (Ephesians 1:7, Galatians 3:13).
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
These are the three sections I posted:
  1. John 6:37-40
  2. John 10:14-16, 25-29
  3. John 17:1-3, 6, 9-10, 20-24
The first two are concise enough to address.

I don't see anything in these texts that support the notions of predestination and an Elect etc so I can't really comment further than that. But if you say how they do.in your reading of them I could comment on that.

I am particularly interested in what you understand Christ to have accomplished when he cried out on the cross, "It is finished" (John 19:30). I think that directs us toward the meaning of his atoning work.

I understand that to mean that by his death Christ established a new covenental relationship that makes possible God's long-term aim of us being reunited with him.

If I might add, who do you understand the elect to be, Biblically (e.g., Romans 8:33)?

I understand the elect to be those who have freely entered into a forgiving covenantal relationship with God.

We play no role in our redemption.

John 3:16 says otherwise:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

Believing (and trusting and loving and being obedient) are actions that fall on us to do. In fact, we are commanded to do do these things.
 
Upvote 0

Yesha

Westminster Standards
Jun 25, 2007
231
54
Connecticut
✟17,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I don't see anything in these texts that support the notions of predestination and an Elect etc so I can't really comment further than that. But if you say how they do.in your reading of them I could comment on that.

I tried to lay that out systematically and concisely in post #48.

Briefly, John 6:37-40 shows us that all who the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son. These same will not be cast out or lost and will be raised up on the last day and granted eternal life. The Father does not give all individual persons in this way to the Son (John 6:44). This means that Christ came to save a particular people given him by the Father. He did not purchase redemption for all individuals.

In John 10:14-16 we see that Christ laid down his life for his sheep only. This flock is given him by the Father (John 10:29). The big point is that Christ's death purchased redemption only for those for whom he died.

I understand that to mean that by his death Christ established a new covenental relationship that makes possible God's long-term aim of us being reunited with him.

In particular, I think that what Christ accomplished on the cross was the redemption of the people for whom he died. Christ atoned for our sins by receiving the wrath of God against our sins, thus satisfying his justice so we could be counted righteous (Rom. 3:26). He became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21) and bore the curse of death on our behalf (Gal. 3:13) so that we are no longer under condemnation (Rom 8:1).

I understand the elect to be those who have freely entered into a forgiving covenantal relationship with God.

Thank you for offering your definition. We differ on this point. I would argue the elect are those whom God foreknew from eternity past and predestined to be conformed to Christ (Rom. 8:29-30).

John 3:16 says otherwise:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

Believing (and trusting and loving and being obedient) are actions that fall on us to do. In fact, we are commanded to do do these things.

Brother, I whole heartedly agree with you that we must believe in Christ in order to be saved. God does not believe on our behalf. However, by redemption, I don't mean the act of expressing saving faith. I mean the work that Christ accomplished so that we can be declared righteous (justified) through the faith which we express, namely, by atoning for our sins through his bloodshed.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. - Romans 3:23-25 (ESV)

7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, - Ephesians 1:7 (ESV)

14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. - Colossians 1:14 (ESV)

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. - Hebrews 9:15 (ESV)

Our redemption is what Christ purchased on our behalf, which was made effectual by his death, burial, and resurrection and which is applied to us by the Holy Spirit who seals us unto the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13, 4:30). It is true that we are justified by faith. However, Christ alone redeems us since his work is what enables us to be declared righteous in the eyes of God. Though we must believe in order to be justified, we contribute nothing to our redemption.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I tried to lay that out systematically and concisely in post #48.

Briefly, John 6:37-40 shows us that all who the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son. These same will not be cast out or lost and will be raised up on the last day and granted eternal life. The Father does not give all individual persons in this way to the Son (John 6:44). This means that Christ came to save a particular people given him by the Father. He did not purchase redemption for all individuals.

In John 10:14-16 we see that Christ laid down his life for his sheep only. This flock is given him by the Father (John 10:29). The big point is that Christ's death purchased redemption only for those for whom he died.



In particular, I think that what Christ accomplished on the cross was the redemption of the people for whom he died. Christ atoned for our sins by receiving the wrath of God against our sins, thus satisfying his justice so we could be counted righteous (Rom. 3:26). He became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21) and bore the curse of death on our behalf (Gal. 3:13) so that we are no longer under condemnation (Rom 8:1).



Thank you for offering your definition. We differ on this point. I would argue the elect are those whom God foreknew from eternity past and predestined to be conformed to Christ (Rom. 8:29-30).



Brother, I whole heartedly agree with you that we must believe in Christ in order to be saved. God does not believe on our behalf. However, by redemption, I don't mean the act of expressing saving faith. I mean the work that Christ accomplished so that we can be declared righteous (justified) through the faith which we express, namely, by atoning for our sins through his bloodshed.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. - Romans 3:23-25 (ESV)

7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, - Ephesians 1:7 (ESV)

14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. - Colossians 1:14 (ESV)

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. - Hebrews 9:15 (ESV)

Our redemption is what Christ purchased on our behalf, which was made effectual by his death, burial, and resurrection and which is applied to us by the Holy Spirit who seals us unto the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13, 4:30). It is true that we are justified by faith. However, Christ alone redeems us since his work is what enables us to be declared righteous in the eyes of God. Though we must believe in order to be justified, we contribute nothing to our redemption.

Thanks for the clear articulation of your beliefs. I have to say, you are the first Calvinist proponent who has been willing and able to give a straightforward and comprehensive account of their position.

I largely agree with what you say but I would have to universalise it and make a space for our willing cooperation in our salvation. I think a relationship with God is open to all and, like any relationship, has to be a two way thing.

Anyway, I've enjoyed our full and frank exchange of views (as a politician might say!)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Yesha
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yesha

Westminster Standards
Jun 25, 2007
231
54
Connecticut
✟17,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the clear articulation of your beliefs. I have to say, you are the first Calvinist proponent who has been willing and able to give a straightforward and comprehensive account of their position.

Thank you! Likewise, I appreciate your willingness to define terms and provide a scriptural basis for your arguments. It's always a pleasure when someone takes time to defend and explain their view by the Word of God because it shows a high view of scriptural authority. You've done this well and I'm sure we'll have more opportunities to interact.

I largely agree with what you say but I would have to universalise it and make a space for our willing cooperation in our salvation. I think a relationship with God is open to all and, like any relationship, has to be a two way thing.

I'm reminded of a quote by a German theologian, Rupertus Meldenius, who said: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity". Whatever our theological differences, I can tell from your posts that you have a desire to defend the integrity and honor of the Lord and for that I am grateful. I know these differences can drive Christians apart but I truly think it's an opportunity to grow stronger together in the faith.

Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17 (ESV)

Anyway, I've enjoyed our full and frank exchange of views (as a politician might say!)

Likewise! I hope a friendly spirit will characterize future conversations. :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0