Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) or Keep the faith until the end?

[Dan Perez]

Ok. The question boils down to: Can a believer become persistently engaged in sin so grave that it destoys their realtionship/union/connection/ fellowship with God, and therefore their salvation?

We agree that all continue to sin-and yet that we can also overcome sin by the Spirit, no? Do I, then, as a believer, now become a puppet such that I can no longer sin seriously enough to seriously offend God-and kill myself all over again in the process? Is my will at all involved, IOW? Is some sufficient degree of righteousness guaranteed, or is it an obligation? Is Paul exhorting and warning us that sin must be overcome since, "our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin", because sin will still earn us death (Rom 6:21)? Or is he telling us that the overcoming of sin by becoming a slave to righteousness is simply guaranteed by God, or, alternatively, that sin is not to be held against us in any case?

In the ancient church a balance was struck between sin that still opposes and offends God while not leading to death (because it's not of its nature radically or obviously opposed to and destructive of love of God and neighbor) vs sin that leads to death, and Scripture seems quite adamant about this distinction as well.

And 1 John 5:18 n says , WE know that whosoever is BORN of God , SINNETH NOT // OU , is a DISJUNCATIVE

PATICLE NEGATIVE and means he will NEVER EVER SIN >


And OSAS is found in 1 Cor 5:1-5 and you will need a good UNDERSTANDING >

dan p

 

[Clare73]

And 1 John 5:18 n says , WE know that whosoever is BORN of God , SINNETH NOT // OU , ism a DISJUNCATIVE
PARICLE NEGATIVE and means he wil NEVER EVER SIN >
And OSAS is found in 1 Cor 5:1-5 and you will need a good UNDERSTANDING >

Did you read 1 Jn 1:8-10: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."?

 

[fhansen]

I don't think it is possible to be possessed by the Spirit of God and be a mass murderer.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (Ro 8:14 NKJV)

The question involves whether not we can walk away from the Spirit of God, whether or not we can fail at our obligation to put to death the deeds of the flesh (Rom 8:12-13).

but his eternal destiny is not at stake because, "if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law" (Ga 5:18 NKJV).

And being under grace has eveything to do with walking by the Spirirt, fulfilling that obligation mentioned above as we put to the the deeds of the flesh that result in death. We're not under the law-but that in no way means we're not obligated to be righteous, with a new righteousness that the law and prophets can only testify to but can never accomplish in us (Rom 3:21). God, alone, can justify the ungodly.

In Romans 6:6, he is telling us that our old self "was crucified" (past tense) for the purpose of making us no longer slaves to sin (present tense). In In Romans 6:20-22, he is telling us that we were slaves (past tense) of sin (vs 20), that we are now ashamed (present tense) of the sins of our past that produced death (vs 21), and that now, after being set free from sin and having been made a slave of righteousness, we have (present tense) the fruit of holiness (the end of which is eternal life) (vs 22).

It would be hard to explain the verb tenses if in reality a person flip-flops between being a slave of sin and a slave of righteousness, alternately gaining death by sin and gaining eternal life by righteousness. Oh wait. A person earns death (death is a wage that is earned), but eternal life is not earned by righteousness (it is a free gift of God) - Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Ro 6:23NASB)

“yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
Colossians 1:22-23

See how our reconcialition is in present tense there, and yet....we must do our part. Paul is both encouraging and warning here.

There is no doubt that some sins are worse than others. But we don't look at our numerous little sins and give ourselves a pass, do we? Our little sins still make us feel guilty before God, right? And they make us feel wretched, right? And we are not in love with our little sins, are we? And we still need His forgiveness for our many little sins, right? Please explain how little sins are disposed of differently than big sins.

Either way, there are sins that Scripture names as resulting in ineligibility for heaven, warning believers at that point. And you seem to agree in an indirect way by maintaining that believers simply won't sin in such a manner. So, what's your opinion about this difference-between milder sins and those uglier ones that exclude us from heaven?

 

[fhansen]

PATICLE NEGATIVE and means he will NEVER EVER SIN >

And yet believers sin. And 1 John 1 also tells us that anyone who says they don't sin is a liar. And that, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

So, yes, we must not continue in sin; that must be our goal, our orientation, the path were on. But if we do sin we can have a change of heart and repent all over again.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, but as the writer of Heb 10:39 says..."But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."

Yep, that's the ideal. And if we persevere in it we'll end up with Him.

I believe that a repentance from sin can be permanent.

And I believe that God is permanently, eternally, infinitely trustworthy and true while the human heart can be deceitful, fickle, changeable. Until we truly, fully love Him with our whole heart soul, mind, and strentgh, we still have a ways to go in our fidelity, our bond to Him is incomplete.

Future sin ?
The truly repentant won't commit future sin.
It would show the past repentance from sin to be a lie to God.

Believers sin everyday in thought, word, and deed.

Hell looks the same from every perspective.

Only if we wish to maintain that a person could persist in wanton rape, torture, slaughter and still expect to make it into heaven.

Where that true, then nobody loves God.

No one here in this life will be absolutely "perfected in love"-and that's why we'll continue to sin. But God is patent in that work of His even if it won't be fully completed until the next life, when we meet Him "face to face".

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

The question involves whether not we can walk away from the Spirit of God, whether or not we can fail at our obligation to put to death the deeds of the flesh (Rom 8:12-13).

And being under grace has eveything to do with walking by the Spirirt, fulfilling that obligation mentioned above as we put to the the deeds of the flesh that result in death. We're not under the law-but that in no way means we're not obligated to be righteous, with a new righteousness that the law and prophets can only testify to but can never accomplish in us (Rom 3:21). God, alone, can justify the ungodly.

“yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
Colossians 1:22-23

See how our reconcialition is in present tense there, and yet....we must do our part. Paul is both encouraging and warning here.

In verse 22, reconciliation is past tense, but His presentation of you as holy, blameless, and beyond reproach is in present tense. In verse 23, continuance is in the present tense, but it is supported by grounding that occurred in the past and not being moved away which occurs in the present. I believe anyone whose faith resulted in God saving them has the internal evidence that their faith was genuine. They are the only ones besides God that can make that determination.

Either way, there are sins that Scripture names as resulting in ineligibility for heaven, warning believers at that point. And you seem to agree in an indirect way by maintaining that believers simply won't sin in such a manner. So, what's your opinion about this difference-between milder sins and those uglier ones that exclude us from heaven?

I see all sins the same in regard to entrance into heaven. They all exclude us. That's why forgiveness is needed for all sins. But some sins can result in God taking one of His children home early if they refuse to be corrected. Not all sins fit in this category.

That's my point of view. But I know you have a different point of view. From your perspective, why doesn't a person's little sins cause them to lose eternal life? Are they too little to need forgiveness? Are they all forgivable but are automatically forgiven? In other words, what feature of little sins excludes them from God's punishment for sins?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I will.

What some Christians fail to understand, particularly those among the LOST (loss of salvation teachers), is that the death penalty for sin is still active. Death has always been a penalty for sin, always will be while this current universe remains in existence. Christians who practice sin run the risk of physical death.

Secondly, it is obvious here ...

For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

That those described don't have an inheritance, meaning quite simply—they are not born-again believers.

1 Peter 1:3-5​

​

King James Version​

​

​

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Notice in v.3 we have been born again by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, not by works which we have done.

Notice in v.4 that our inheritance is incorruptible, undefiled, and will not fade away.

Notice, too, that born-again believers are kept by the power of God through faith, not works. The "salvation" ready to be revealed in the "last time" is in fact the final stage of our Salvation, the glorification of our bodies, and the point where we will in fact be free of sin's presence.

Now, the single issue I believe to be the reason why the LOST are so confused is that they don't actually understand salvation in Christ. They do not understand that the Ordo Salutis goes like this: God sends the Comforter to reveal the Mystery of the Gospel to those who are dead. Yes, I mean dead, even though they have physical life. The LIFE they need is only acquired through the Eternal Indwelling spoken of in John 14:15-23 (as well as throughout Chs.15-17).

John 14:15-17​

​

King James Version​

​

​

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

When the person dead in sins and lacking the LIFE of God believes the Gospel revealed to them (for we know the natural man cannot perceive or understand the spiritual things of God, the Gospel being at the top of the list), they are eternally indwelt by none other than God Himself (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (John 14:15-23)).

What the LOST also overlook is that the disciples of Christ were not born-again believers, they were Jews living under the Law, and like all other Jews, still awaiting the salvation Prophecy bespoke in regards to Messiah.

But that couldn't happen while Christ remained on Earth:

John 16:7-9​

King James Version​

​

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

John 7:38-40​

​

King James Version​

​

​

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.

Read carefully, the Holy Ghost was not yet given.

So we have the LOST creating doctrines out of passages like John 15, another prophetic teaching passage, and all the while ignoring the fact that—not a single disciple abided!

Amazing!

No, they didn't abide in Christ, but as Prophecy foretold, they scattered to the wind to save their own necks, Peter going so far as to deny he even knew Jesus Christ.

So just a little advice: before going into a public arena and teaching doctrine that denigrates Christian Doctrine, we would do well to actually study the Bible. I understand how the LOST (loss of salvation teachers) fall into the trap that robs them of their faith in Christ, but at the same time, it is a malady easily cured with diligent study. It's always what we don't know that should encourage humility.

God bless.

So everyone who believes what the church actually taught for the first 1500 years of Christianity is “LOST”?

 

[fhansen]

That's my point of view. But I know you have a different point of view. From your perspective, why doesn't a person's little sins cause them to lose eternal life? Are they too little to need forgiveness? Are they all forgivable but are automatically forgiven? In other words, what feature of little sins excludes them from God's punishment for sins?

He's not demanding absolute perfect sinlessness in this life, but to be connected to Himself, the Vine, whereupon His Spirit can do His work, grace now flowing, a work amounting to a journey to the purpose we were created for. Together with Him we work out our salvation, but not separate or independent from righteousness but rather being given and necessarily growing in that "righteousness of God", "the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith", Phil 3:9. At the end He gives His just verdict- of how we did with what we've been given.

If Gal 5, 6 and Rev 21, 22, as examples. are describing some kinds of sins that will exclude us from heaven, then I think there must be differences in sin worth taking note and being aware of. If we're sewing to the Spirit, not mocking God, then we'll be reaping what we sew including the overcoming the sin that Rom 8:12-13 says will earn us death. From another perspective I wrote a shortened version of some related Christian history in an earlier post:

"The early Christians had given up much in order to convert to the faith, including their lives at times. Becoming Christian was to turn from, to deny, the world and its ways and its sin- and turn to God. To return to sin in a major way: murder, theft, adultery, etc was to turn one’s back on and away from God and His church. As they were quite the rigorists in this observance of the faith, it was considered to be impossible for such a person to return to fellowship again. And passages such as the one you [the poster] quoted from Heb or Heb 6:4-6 or 2 Pet 2:20-22 or 1 John 5:16-17, etc, only supported such notions which was the standard attitude throughout the various churches throughout the whole church world. But in the 2nd century a bishop, amid much heated controversy, determined and taught, based on a deeper understanding of God’s mercy and love, that one could repent for any sin and return to the fold even if much penance and time was required back then. This teaching would eventually become adopted by the whole church."

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's my point of view. But I know you have a different point of view. From your perspective, why doesn't a person's little sins cause them to lose eternal life? Are they too little to need forgiveness? Are they all forgivable but are automatically forgiven? In other words, what feature of little sins excludes them from God's punishment for sins?

I don’t think it has anything to do with the sin itself but more about the person’s attitude towards God.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

He's not demanding absolute perfect sinlessness in this life, but to be connected to Himself, the Vine, whereupon His Spirit can do His work, grace now flowing, a work amounting to a journey to the purpose we were created for. Together with Him we work out our salvation, but not separate or independent from righteousness but rather being given and necessarily growing in that "righteousness of God", "the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith", Phil 3:9. At the end He gives His just verdict- of how we did with what we've been given.

If Gal 5, 6 and Rev 21, 22, as examples. are describing some kinds of sins that will exclude us from heaven, then I think there must be differences in sin worth taking note and being aware of. If we're sewing to the Spirit, not mocking God, then we'll be reaping what we sew including the overcoming the sin that Rom 8:12-13 says will earn us death. From another perspective I wrote a shortened version of some related Christian history in an earlier post:

"The early Christians had given up much in order to convert to the faith, including their lives at times. Becoming Christian was to turn from, to deny, the world and its ways and its sin- and turn to God. To return to sin in a major way: murder, theft, adultery, etc was to turn one’s back on and away from God and His church. As they were quite the rigorists in this observance of the faith, it was considered to be impossible for such a person to return to fellowship again. And passages such as the one you [the poster] quoted from Heb or Heb 6:4-6 or 2 Pet 2:20-22 or 1 John 5:16-17, etc, only supported such notions which was the standard attitude throughout the various churches throughout the whole church world. But in the 2nd century a bishop, amid much heated controversy, determined and taught, based on a deeper understanding of God’s mercy and love, that one could repent for any sin and return to the fold even if much penance and time was required back then. This teaching would eventually become adopted by the whole church."

OK, I see you don't have an answer. I'll ask AI to explain the Catholic position.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

He's not demanding absolute perfect sinlessness in this life, but to be connected to Himself, the Vine, whereupon His Spirit can do His work, grace now flowing, a work amounting to a journey to the purpose we were created for. Together with Him we work out our salvation, but not separate or independent from righteousness but rather being given and necessarily growing in that "righteousness of God", "the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith", Phil 3:9. At the end He gives His just verdict- of how we did with what we've been given.

If Gal 5, 6 and Rev 21, 22, as examples. are describing some kinds of sins that will exclude us from heaven, then I think there must be differences in sin worth taking note and being aware of. If we're sewing to the Spirit, not mocking God, then we'll be reaping what we sew including the overcoming the sin that Rom 8:12-13 says will earn us death. From another perspective I wrote a shortened version of some related Christian history in an earlier post:

"The early Christians had given up much in order to convert to the faith, including their lives at times. Becoming Christian was to turn from, to deny, the world and its ways and its sin- and turn to God. To return to sin in a major way: murder, theft, adultery, etc was to turn one’s back on and away from God and His church. As they were quite the rigorists in this observance of the faith, it was considered to be impossible for such a person to return to fellowship again. And passages such as the one you [the poster] quoted from Heb or Heb 6:4-6 or 2 Pet 2:20-22 or 1 John 5:16-17, etc, only supported such notions which was the standard attitude throughout the various churches throughout the whole church world. But in the 2nd century a bishop, amid much heated controversy, determined and taught, based on a deeper understanding of God’s mercy and love, that one could repent for any sin and return to the fold even if much penance and time was required back then. This teaching would eventually become adopted by the whole church."

Here is the question: From the Catholic perspective, please explain why a person's little sins do not cause them to lose eternal life. Are they too little to need forgiveness, or are they all forgivable but are automatically forgiven? In other words, what feature of little sins excludes little sins from God's punishment for sins?

Here is Google Gemini's answer:

From the Catholic perspective, "little sins," also known as venial sins, do not cause a person to lose eternal life because they do not fundamentally rupture the relationship between the individual and God in the same way that mortal sins do. Here's a breakdown of the reasoning:​

​

Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sin:​

​

The Catholic Church distinguishes between two categories of sin based on their gravity:​

​

• Mortal Sin:This is a grave offense against God and neighbor. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be simultaneously met:
  • Grave Matter: The act itself must be seriously wrong (e.g., murder, adultery, theft of a significant amount).
  • Full Knowledge: The person must know that the act is seriously wrong.
  • Full Consent of the Will: The person must freely and deliberately choose to commit the act. Mortal sin, if unrepented, deprives the soul of sanctifying grace and causes spiritual death, leading to eternal separation from God (hell).
• Venial Sin: This is a less serious offense against God and neighbor. It wounds charity in the heart of the person but does not destroy it. Venial sins include things like minor acts of impatience, small lies, or failing in small duties.

Why Venial Sins Don't Cause Loss of Eternal Life:​

​

The Catholic understanding is that venial sins, by their very nature, do not break the fundamental bond of love and friendship with God. Here's why:​

​

1. Lack of Grave Matter: Venial sins involve actions that are not considered gravely wrong in themselves. They are imperfections, failings, or weaknesses rather than a deliberate turning away from God's fundamental law of love.
2. Imperfect Consent or Lack of Full Knowledge: Sometimes, actions that might otherwise be grave are considered venial because there was not full knowledge of their wrongness or full and deliberate consent of the will. For example, a sudden outburst of anger without prolonged deliberation might be venial.
3. Wounding, Not Destroying Charity: Venial sin weakens our love for God and others and can incline us towards mortal sin, but it does not extinguish the supernatural life of grace within us. We still retain the fundamental orientation towards God.

Are They Too Little to Need Forgiveness, or Are They All Forgivable but Automatically Forgiven?​

​

It's not accurate to say that venial sins are "too little to need forgiveness" or that they are "automatically forgiven" without any action on our part. While they don't carry the eternal consequences of mortal sin, they still represent a falling short of God's will and harm our relationship with Him and others.​

​

How Venial Sins are Forgiven:​

​

The Church teaches that venial sins are forgiven through various means, including:​

• Acts of Charity and Love: Sincere acts of love for God and neighbor can help to repair the damage caused by venial sins.
• Prayer: Humble prayer for forgiveness can obtain God's mercy.
• Sacraments:
  • Eucharist: Receiving Holy Communion worthily remits venial sins and strengthens us against future sin.
  • Penance (Confession): While not strictly necessary for the forgiveness of venial sins (as it is for mortal sins), confessing venial sins is highly recommended as it provides sacramental grace, helps us to recognize our weaknesses, and guides us in spiritual growth.
• Sacramentals: These are sacred signs instituted by the Church (e.g., holy water, blessings, the sign of the cross) that can obtain spiritual effects, including the remission of venial sins.
• Repentance and Contrition: Even imperfect contrition (sorrow for sin motivated by fear of punishment or the ugliness of sin) can obtain forgiveness for venial sins, especially when coupled with other means of grace.

In Summary:​

​

The feature of venial sins that excludes them from God's eternal punishment is their nature as less serious offenses that do not fundamentally break our relationship with God. They are still sins that require forgiveness and can weaken our spiritual life, but they do not lead to spiritual death and eternal separation from God in the same way that unrepented mortal sin does. The Church provides various means through which these lesser offenses can be forgiven and our relationship with God can be healed and strengthened.​

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

I don’t think it has anything to do with the sin itself but more about the person’s attitudes towards God.

Can you explain your position in more detail? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[fhansen]

Here is the question: From the Catholic perspective, please explain why a person's little sins do not cause them to lose eternal life. Are they too little to need forgiveness, or are they all forgivable but are automatically forgiven? In other words, what feature of little sins excludes little sins from God's punishment for sins?

Here is Google Gemini's answer:

From the Catholic perspective, "little sins," also known as venial sins, do not cause a person to lose eternal life because they do not fundamentally rupture the relationship between the individual and God in the same way that mortal sins do. Here's a breakdown of the reasoning:​

​

Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sin:​

​

The Catholic Church distinguishes between two categories of sin based on their gravity:​

​

• Mortal Sin:This is a grave offense against God and neighbor. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be simultaneously met:
  • Grave Matter: The act itself must be seriously wrong (e.g., murder, adultery, theft of a significant amount).
  • Full Knowledge: The person must know that the act is seriously wrong.
  • Full Consent of the Will: The person must freely and deliberately choose to commit the act. Mortal sin, if unrepented, deprives the soul of sanctifying grace and causes spiritual death, leading to eternal separation from God (hell).
• Venial Sin: This is a less serious offense against God and neighbor. It wounds charity in the heart of the person but does not destroy it. Venial sins include things like minor acts of impatience, small lies, or failing in small duties.

Why Venial Sins Don't Cause Loss of Eternal Life:​

​

The Catholic understanding is that venial sins, by their very nature, do not break the fundamental bond of love and friendship with God. Here's why:​

​

1. Lack of Grave Matter: Venial sins involve actions that are not considered gravely wrong in themselves. They are imperfections, failings, or weaknesses rather than a deliberate turning away from God's fundamental law of love.
2. Imperfect Consent or Lack of Full Knowledge: Sometimes, actions that might otherwise be grave are considered venial because there was not full knowledge of their wrongness or full and deliberate consent of the will. For example, a sudden outburst of anger without prolonged deliberation might be venial.
3. Wounding, Not Destroying Charity: Venial sin weakens our love for God and others and can incline us towards mortal sin, but it does not extinguish the supernatural life of grace within us. We still retain the fundamental orientation towards God.

Are They Too Little to Need Forgiveness, or Are They All Forgivable but Automatically Forgiven?​

​

It's not accurate to say that venial sins are "too little to need forgiveness" or that they are "automatically forgiven" without any action on our part. While they don't carry the eternal consequences of mortal sin, they still represent a falling short of God's will and harm our relationship with Him and others.​

​

How Venial Sins are Forgiven:​

​

The Church teaches that venial sins are forgiven through various means, including:​

• Acts of Charity and Love: Sincere acts of love for God and neighbor can help to repair the damage caused by venial sins.
• Prayer: Humble prayer for forgiveness can obtain God's mercy.
• Sacraments:
  • Eucharist: Receiving Holy Communion worthily remits venial sins and strengthens us against future sin.
  • Penance (Confession): While not strictly necessary for the forgiveness of venial sins (as it is for mortal sins), confessing venial sins is highly recommended as it provides sacramental grace, helps us to recognize our weaknesses, and guides us in spiritual growth.
• Sacramentals: These are sacred signs instituted by the Church (e.g., holy water, blessings, the sign of the cross) that can obtain spiritual effects, including the remission of venial sins.
• Repentance and Contrition: Even imperfect contrition (sorrow for sin motivated by fear of punishment or the ugliness of sin) can obtain forgiveness for venial sins, especially when coupled with other means of grace.

In Summary:​

​

The feature of venial sins that excludes them from God's eternal punishment is their nature as less serious offenses that do not fundamentally break our relationship with God. They are still sins that require forgiveness and can weaken our spiritual life, but they do not lead to spiritual death and eternal separation from God in the same way that unrepented mortal sin does. The Church provides various means through which these lesser offenses can be forgiven and our relationship with God can be healed and strengthened.​

Yes, that's essentially what weve been discussing. From a couple more persectives, from the catechism:

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity [love] in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity [love] - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

Related to this, paragraph 1022 speaking of our judgement:
"At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love."597

Now, Scripture as well, speaks of this, about "sin that leads to death", and, again, names several such sins specifically. And I'd submit that this distinction between the gravity of sins is the only honest way to deal with the matter of sin. If all sin is the same and all sin is automatically forgiven for a believer then we're left with the rather awkward logical conclusion that all sins should be allowable.

The point is that, as most believe, we will not achieve perfect sinlessness in this life. And yet, we must be on that path, overcoming sin sufficiently with the grace we have to do so.

 

[Dan Perez]

Did you read 1 Jn 1:8-10: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."?

and 1 John says that you can NOT // OU ever sin , EVERRRRRRRRRRR SIN , is the verse TRUE or FALSE ?

And IF we sin why have and ADVOCATE with the FATHER in 1 John 2:1 ??

DAN P

 

[RileyG]

Not according to the NT:

Jn 6:37 - All that the Father gives to me will come to me.

Jn 6:39 - I shall lose none of all that the Father has given me.

Jn 10:28 - My sheep listen to my voice. . .shall never perish, no one can snatch them out of my hand.

1 Pe 1:4-5 - The born again have true faith and are kept by the power of God.

Mt 7:22-23 - Only counterfeit faith apostasizes.

An example of counterfeit faith.

What about John 6:66-67?

 

[Hoping2]

Yep, that's the ideal. And if we persevere in it we'll end up with Him.

Amen.

And I believe that God is permanently, eternally, infinitely trustworthy and true while the human heart can be deceitful, fickle, changeable.

Thanks be to God for giving the reborn the mind of Christ, so the unbeliever's fall-back position doesn't apply to them.

Until we truly, fully love Him with our whole heart soul, mind, and strentgh, we still have a ways to go in our fidelity, our bond to Him is incomplete.

That should occur on the day men accept Jesus as the Lord.

Believers sin everyday in thought, word, and deed.

I disagree.

Only if we wish to maintain that a person could persist in wanton rape, torture, slaughter and still expect to make it into heaven.

Any unrepented of sin will exclude men from eternal life.

No one here in this life will be absolutely "perfected in love"-and that's why we'll continue to sin.

I disagree.
I know that those who have "crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts", and been reborn of God's seed, are no longer subject to intermittent love of God or neighbor.

But God is patient in that work of His even if it won't be fully completed until the next life, when we meet Him "face to face".

By the time a next life is granted, at the day of judgement, it will be too late for the foot-draggers.
Today is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 6:2)

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Yes, that's essentially what weve been discussing. From a couple more persectives, from the catechism:

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity [love] in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

This seems to make grave sin anthropomorphic, giving it the power to turn a man's heart away from God. This is an error because sin comes from the heart, and the heart that produces sin was turned away from God before it produced the sin.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity [love] - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

This is what I thought Catholics believed (i.e., that when a person commits a grave sin, they lose their salvation, and they can gain it back again under certain circumstances).

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

At least Google's AI indicated the venial sins needed to be forgiven (by God I suppose). But there was no mention of the punishment that would be handed out if forgiveness for venial sins was not achieved. It's ironic that my position has been criticized as minimizing sin.

Related to this, paragraph 1022 speaking of our judgement:
"At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love."597

I read this as saying "love" is the greatest commandment, and as such, it is the only commandment upon which we will be judged. It says we don't know what God's judgement will be, but we hope that when He judges us that He will find that our love was of a sufficiently high quality to satisfy His requirement. It is unclear what role venial and grave sins play in a person's judgement. Do they have no effect if properly delt with beforehand, and if so, what is left to affect God's judgement? So I guess I don't understand why there is uncertainty of the outcome of judgement. Is it just that we lack full knowledge of the gravity of all our sins?

Now, Scripture as well, speaks of this, about "sin that leads to death", and, again, names several such sins specifically. And I'd submit that this distinction between the gravity of sins is the only honest way to deal with the matter of sin.

Actually, the opposite is true. All sin is unrighteousness. And the only honest way to deal with sin is to agree with God that all sin is wrong and accept the sacrifice of His Son as payment of the debt we owe.

If all sin is the same and all sin is automatically forgiven for a believer then we're left with the rather awkward logical conclusion that all sins should be allowable.

The awkwardness of that conclusion stems from the false premise that some sins are allowable.

The point is that, as most believe, we will not achieve perfect sinlessness in this life. And yet, we must be on that path, overcoming sin sufficiently with the grace we have to do so.

What sins are we overcomming? Venial sins are allowable. Grave sins are easily avoidable. Any mistakes we make can be rectified. What more is required to "overcome sin sufficiently"?

 

[fhansen]

This seems to make grave sin anthropomorphic, giving it the power to turn a man's heart away from God. This is an error because sin comes from the heart, and the heart that produces sin was turned away from God before it produced the sin.

We have to understand the Fall of man from the correct perspective first of all. Man did not become some kind of "sin machine" with a new nature as if something was added to him. Rather he lost something, he lost his vital connection to his Creator in a bid for autonomy from Him. And with that he lost moral continency. Adam literally got what he wanted, freedom from the moral authority of God. We're here to come to learn to freely accept that authority now, as we come to recognize and acknowledge our need for it after all, for Him, 'apart from whom we can do nothing', That's what being born again is all about, to be reconciled with and returned back to God.

Sin doesn't turn us away from God; we turn away as evidenced by our sin that attracts us away from the true Good, "tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed", James 1. We fail to put God first above all else. And that kind of sin and the selfishness and hatred it implies erodes our love even more. It's a slavery.

The will remains a player until our love is so complete that we simply never will or choose foolishly, against His will, again. If Adam possessed that love in Eden he never would've disobeyed but in God's wise economy that love, in order to even be true love, is a chosen thing, a process that's embraced, cultivated, and grown in as we come to know and embrace Him, turning away from sin and the temporary offerings of this world, even as that love is also a gift from Him to begin with. And that love, and the struggle with and the turning away from sin that opposes it, with the testing and refinement involved in this process, is God's ultimate creative plan for bringing us to our very purpose, our telos, the reason we were created as it transforms us increasingly into His image. Love is man's righteousness, his justice, as the Source of that love is our righteousness.

This is what I thought Catholics believed (i.e., that when a person commits a grave sin, they lose their salvation, and they can gain it back again under certain circumstances).

Yes, and like I said, we'd have to throw out a large portion of the bible in order to believe otherwise.

At least Google's AI indicated the venial sins needed to be forgiven (by God I suppose). But there was no mention of the punishment that would be handed out if forgiveness for venial sins was not achieved. It's ironic that my position has been criticized as minimizing sin.

Any position that says that we can sin and still expect to make it into heaven minimizes sin. That's what "simul justus et peccator" effectively amounts to, for instance. In Catholicism, God doesn't necessarily expect us to be absolutely perfect in this life, even as perfection is the utlimate goal. We receive a final purification in the next life in Catholic teaching, if we haven't so rejected God and His ways by our actions in this life that we prove we have no desire and love for Him at all. We need to look at this honestly and practically. If two people walked into the room and one had just stolen from the cookie jar or fudged on his taxes while the other had just tortured and killed another person, which would you want to hang out with more, and which do you think might be closer to God?

I read this as saying "love" is the greatest commandment, and as such, it is the only commandment upon which we will be judged. It says we don't know what God's judgement will be, but we hope that when He judges us that He will find that our love was of a sufficiently high quality to satisfy His requirement.

Love and sin are mutually exclusive, which is why "love fulfills the law". Love is true righteousness.

Actually, the opposite is true. All sin is unrighteousness. And the only honest way to deal with sin is to agree with God that all sin is wrong and accept the sacrifice of His Son as payment of the debt we owe.

I never denied for a moment that all sin is unrighteousness-saying only that some sin strikes at and offends againt love much more directly and radically such that a radical change of heart has occured requiring a radical metanoia and repentance all over again. But we mock God if we think His Son sacrificed Himself for forgiveness only, and not also for the purpose of actually restoring true justice/righteous to and within us now-so that along with being forgiven we'll 'go, and sin no more', even if that sanctity is a process that is worked out as we work our salvation and make our calling and election sure. We grow nearer to and more in love with God-and sin grows further away at the same time. That's the path we must be on. Some, having lived extremely sinful lives, have experienced such dramatic conversions that they reject sin all at once, more completely than others -but I guarantee that the battle, the struggle of choosing between good and evil, still goes on for them too, to one degree or another.

The awkwardness of that conclusion stems from the false premise that some sins are allowable.

The awkwardness stems from thinking that all sins past, present, and future are automatcailly forgiven for no other reason than that one believes, without the overcoming of sin also being part of the "equation". Heck, unless change, inducing our reciprocal love, takes place in us we won't be forgiven:
"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:14-15

The awkardness and ambiguity reside in thinking that egregious sin should exclude one from being a child of God to begin with while accepting milder sins as not excluding him- and then objecting to that very idea when it's spelled out in practical terms by church doctrine. Or in thinking that all sins are forgiven only by belief, such that the answer to the question, 'can a person persistently engaging in rape, torture, and murder still expect to enter heaven as long as they believe?', becomes problematic- and answered in a variety of often conflicting ways.

 

[Clare73]

and 1 John says that you can NOT // OU ever sin , EVERRRRRRRRRRR SIN , is the verse TRUE or FALSE ?

And IF we sin why have and ADVOCATE with the FATHER in 1 John 2:1 ??

DAN P

Is 1 Jn 1:18 true or false?

 

[Clare73]

What about John 6:66-67?

As was Judas', there faith was counterfeit, they were not born again.