Sins after Baptism

[New_Wineskin]

Well, this was disappointing.

LOL!! Yes , one would expect more .

 

[steve_bakr]

There are a few different definitions of sins . Many go by a list of must's and must not's . Some are defined by relationship . Some of them have meter of seriousness - others do not . To some it is a doctrinal issue - others , a personal issue .

Water baptism - that has been done to death to show even on this forum of the various views .

Repentance and forgiveness are different as to whether it is done between the Lord and the person alone or whether an intermediary of some type is a part of it .

"Friendship with God" ... some do not even understand how this is a real and personal thing - a one-to-one interaction . Some have it as a communal thing while others have it as a personal thing .

What is your view?

 

[Standing Up]

One of your paragraphs is a bit unintelligable--the one that starts, "I spent some time in OBOB." If you could take a look at it and rewrite it with perhaps a little more clarification--ie., who is the pedophile priest that "is RC" and who is sending a born-again Christian to hell?--perhaps I could address it.

The pedophile priest was considered to be RC (a born-again Christian in P verbiage) who committed heinous acts. He, unless repented, goes to hell. (Same with denying in de fide doctrine.) The question was why he was permitted to serve? Why not expell him or turn him over to the authorities?

IOW, he sins, repents, repeats. Paul, however, instructed cast the evil one out (1 Cor). Why the disconnect between scripture and tradition?

I'm not in agreement with your analysis that says--since we recognize that some sins are more serious than others--that is somehow the cause of the pedophile priest problem.

Fair enough.

The problem--as far as I can tell--is that it was treated as a Church matter rather than a legal matter. Secondly, there was the terrible matter of the Bishops inordinately placing more value on protecting the priests and the Church rather than the innocents. But it has no causal connection to our beliefs about sin.

Why not? RC thinks sins after baptism are divided into degrees. Pedophile is allowed, but not belief in infallibility. Reject a marian dogma and you're out, abuse the children and you're welcomed (until recently).

You still seem to misunderstand our process of Confession and reconciliation. Reconciliation is with God (vertical) and community (horizontal).

BTW, If we are all of the Body of Christ--which I believe we are--it is incumbant upon us to treat each other with filial love and genuine concern. This applies to me as much as anyone, and I believe it to be possible between Protestants and Catholics. Amen.

The Catholic "sin after Baptism" theology is that they require repentance and forgiveness. But this is a thread for Protestant theology too.

If the pre-Vatican II Catholic corrects me, I hope to explain to him that we're not a pre-Vatican II Church.

Well, there's obvious disagreement in the camp.

Sin after baptism---yep we all do it. My point is breaking a little one is the same as breaking all of them per scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

I think Standing up problem is that he views Salvation through a type of OSAS lens so he thinks that a Christian can not go to Hell, instead of viewing the matter correctly as sins taking us out of friendship with God and repentance renewing that friendship. He does not appear to be able to comprehend any other way but his own, many post with him has taught me this.

Since you apparently believe a born-again Christian can go to hell, tell us how that would work. For example, the idea of communion of saints includes or excludes those saints in hell? Don't some pray for the dead--but not those in hell? Peter said we're born again of incorruptible seed, so that person could go to hell anyway, right?

 

[steve_bakr]

The pedophile priest was considered to be RC (a born-again Christian in P verbiage) who committed heinous acts. He, unless repented, goes to hell. (Same with denying in de fide doctrine.) The question was why he was permitted to serve? Why not expell him or turn him over to the authorities?

IOW, he sins, repents, repeats. Paul, however, instructed cast the evil one out (1 Cor). Why the disconnect between scripture and tradition?

Fair enough.

Why not? RC thinks sins after baptism are divided into degrees. Pedophile is allowed, but not belief in infallibility. Reject a marian dogma and you're out, abuse the children and you're welcomed (until recently).

Well, there's obvious disagreement in the camp.

Sin after baptism---yep we all do it. My point is breaking a little one is the same as breaking all of them per scripture.

I'd be happy to discuss theology more specifically, but using the sex abuse cases for indicting Catholic theology is gratuitous and opportunistic. In good faith, I tried being transparent with you, but you repaid my goodwill with slander.

Remember that I had prayed that you were sincere and possessed the attribute of filial love.

I've read some of your other posts. Why do you grind the axe against my Church? Are you a former Catholic?

Yes, we all sin. Jesus made the point that even committing the slightest sin makes us all guilty and in need of redemption.

But he was not saying that murder is the equivalent of stealing an apple. Common sense tells us that the one is more serious than the other.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No he was not, it is a gross misinterpretation. OSAS is a lie

So, please tell me exactly what Jesus did mean when He said. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." John 10:27-29

 

[steve_bakr]

So, please tell me exactly what Jesus did mean when He said. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." John 10:27-29

Those are good verses and require some thought. I don't think of OSAS as an adversarial view, by the way. I started this thread because I honestly wanted to read what others have to say.

To me, the verses seem to suggest that no one--aka, Satan--could snatch anyone belonging to Jesus away from him. But, since I believe we have free will, the verses do not necessarily say that we of ourselves could not conceivably sin so obstinately that we may lose friendship with God.

I say "conceivably" because I believe committing what we Catholics call mortal sin is in reality very difficult to do, because at some point it involves a deliberate rejection of God.

Even then, we believe that mortal sins can be forgiven. The only unforgiveable sin is ultimate and obstinate refusal to repent. Because, how can we be forgiven if we do not repent?

 

[christseeker45]

Those are good verses and require some thought. I don't think of OSAS as an adversarial view, by the way. I started this thread because I honestly wanted to read what others have to say.

To me, the verses seem to suggest that no one--aka, Satan--could snatch anyone belonging to Jesus away from him. But, since I believe we have free will, the verses do not necessarily say that we of ourselves could not conceivably sin so obstinately that we may lose friendship with God.

I say "conceivably" because I believe committing what we Catholics call mortal sin is in reality very difficult to do, because at some point it involves a deliberate rejection of God.

Even then, we believe that mortal sins can be forgiven. The only unforgiveable sin is ultimate and obstinate refusal to repent. Because, how can we be forgiven if we do not repent?

what Steve said

 

[Standing Up]

Using the sex abuse cases for indicting Catholic theology is gratuitous and opportunistic. I tried being transparent with you, but you repaid my goodwill with slander.

Remember that I had prayed that you were sincere and possessed the attribute of filial love.

I've read some of your other posts. Why do you grind the axe against my Church? Are you a former Catholic?

Yes, we all sin. Jesus made the point that even committing the slightest sin makes us all guilty and in need of redemption.

But he was not saying that murder is the equivalent of stealing an apple. Common sense tells us that the one is more serious than the other.

Well, no; he was saying that. Stealing and murdering are each part of the 10 commandments. Jesus went further and said if you even think about lust, you've sinned; forget about acting it out. They are sin. There's no such thing as degrees of sin. Break one, you've broke them all. That's scripture.

I'm sorry you feel I've impugned your group and am insincere. Would that we rather consider scripture, rather than tradition that suggests degrees of evil. Seriously, don't you agree with the idea you break one commandment, you've broken them all? Paul, Peter, James have that wrong?

Sins after baptism---yes, we all do that. Where the idea of venial and mortal sins came from, I've no idea. There is a verse about the unforgivable sin, but that is rejecting Messiah.

The point was because of the idea of degrees of sin, it allowed the sinner to remain in the camp. That's not right. It's not about the vertical relationship, but about the horizontal one at some point with recurring sin. Pedophile priest was an easy example, but take the Judas example of stealing. If you have an altar boy stealing the wine or money, how long will that minor sin be allowed? After all, you said, stealing is minor.

 

[steve_bakr]

Well, no; he was saying that. Stealing and murdering are each part of the 10 commandments. Jesus went further and said if you even think about lust, you've sinned; forget about acting it out. They are sin. There's no such thing as degrees of sin. Break one, you've broke them all. That's scripture.

I'm sorry you feel I've impugned your group and am insincere. Would that we rather consider scripture, rather than tradition that suggests degrees of evil. Seriously, don't you agree with the idea you break one commandment, you've broken them all? Paul, Peter, James have that wrong?

Sins after baptism---yes, we all do that. Where the idea of venial and mortal sins came from, I've no idea. There is a verse about the unforgivable sin, but that is rejecting Messiah.

I acknowledge the teaching that-- metaphysically or universally-- committing one sin is to be guilty of them all. This is in terms of the universal need for redemption.

In addition to the universal, we must also have a system of application for specific sins. Thomas Aquinas did quite a lot of that work in Summa Theologica.

According to Aquinas, if a person steals an apple out of need, this lessens his culpability. This would require little or no punishment or amends. Whereas, a murder done out of malice is an entirely different category.

Not only is the victim slain, there are other possible victims, such as his widow and his dependent children. If the man performed a good service to society, the entire community suffers a loss. Such a sin may require the transfer of goods from the murderer to the widow, in addition to the application of the death penalty.

A system of application for specific sins is necessary for Confession, penance, and punishment, not to mention the right order of society.

But this does not detract from the teaching of Jesus that-- metaphysically or universally--men are guilty of all sins. This teaching assures our understanding of the universal need for redemption.

 

[Standing Up]

Guess that answers my ignorance. The scaling of sin from little to big originated with Aquinas. Beautiful.

So, what's the point now? Sins after baptism----yes and ???

 

[weariedsoul]

Guess that answers my ignorance. The scaling of sin from little to big originated with Aquinas. Beautiful.

So, what's the point now? Sins after baptism----yes and ???

om 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.


Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

 

[New_Wineskin]

What is your view?

Of ?

 

[steve_bakr]

Of ?

Sin after Baptism.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Guess that answers my ignorance. The scaling of sin from little to big originated with Aquinas. Beautiful.

That's funny. I thought it originated in 1 John 5:16-16: "If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one - to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal."

And whether you think about 1 John, the historical distinction in western catholic theology certainly didn't originate with Aquinas.

 

[steve_bakr]

Guess that answers my ignorance. The scaling of sin from little to big originated with Aquinas. Beautiful.

So, what's the point now? Sins after baptism----yes and ???

I said that Thomas Aquinas did much work in this area in his monumental work, Summa Theologica, but not that it originated with him. The Bible says:

"So shall I be above reproach, free from grave sin. Psalm 19:13

Perhaps the point is that we should be ever vigilant, and ask God to keep us away from the sins that beset us. But charity covers a multitude of sins. As Aquinas says:

"It belongs immediately to charity that man should give himself to God, adhering to him by a union of the spirit."

 

[Willie T]

If all your sins were taken upon Jesus at the cross....... (actually the Bible says INTO, He BECAME our sin, ............ and you wouldn't even be born for another 2,000 years... which part of the sins in your life did Jesus take care of back in 33 AD?

I suppose He anticipated you being "saved" at age... whatever?... and He covered you up to that point in time, and not a second longer? From then on, you have to chew up, and swallow, the host once a week to keep it all going?

What do you do with that sin you comitted at 11:37 on Tuesday night? (The good priest is fast asleep in bed at that time.)

 

[Standing Up]

That's funny. I thought it originated in 1 John 5:16-16: "If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one - to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal."

And whether you think about 1 John, the historical distinction in western catholic theology certainly didn't originate with Aquinas.

I must be going by EO Tradition, rather than RC Tradition. FWIW-

According to Fr. Allyne Smith, "While the Roman Catholic tradition has identified particular acts as 'mortal' sins, in the Orthodox tradition we see that only a sin for which we don't repent is 'mortal.'"[24]
"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death... These categories do not exist in the Orthodox Church. Sin is sin.
-wiki-

As to 1 Jn., you really think he had in mind RC theology? Here's the rest of John's thought-

-all unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not unto death.We have known that every one who hath been begotten of God doth not sin, but he who was begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him; -

The sin unto death is rejecting Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

If all your sins were taken upon Jesus at the cross....... (actually the Bible says INTO, He BECAME our sin, ............ and you wouldn't even be born for another 2,000 years... which part of the sins in your life did Jesus take care of back in 33 AD?

I suppose He anticipated you being "saved" at age... whatever?... and He covered you up to that point in time, and not a second longer? From then on, you have to chew up, and swallow, the host once a week to keep it all going?

What do you do with that sin you comitted at 11:37 on Tuesday night? (The good priest is fast asleep in bed at that time.)

There is that. Christ was provision for those who came later and for those already who had died (Heb. 11).

 

[Standing Up]

The Catholic view is that serious--ie., mortal--sins destroy Charity within the person, thereby ruining friendship with God. Repentance and forgiveness are required to get it back.

Many Protestants feel that at Baptism--or acceptance of Christ as personal Savior--ALL sins are forgiven: past, present, and future. In this view, serious sin does not cause the loss of friendship between the Christian and God.

Which is the correct view, and what are the Bible verses that support your answer?

Do you think P doesn't repent, ask forgiveness?

How are your mortal sins "taken care of"? Differently from "minor" sins?

What's the distinction in the scale of sins? Where's that in scripture?