Sins after Baptism

[steve_bakr]

This verse may express the perfect ideal. The one born of God that John refers to may be the Christian whose spiritual progress has led him to perfection, which I think is very rare. Otherwise, we would have no need of the repentance (of sinning Christians) that the Bible talks about elsewhere. I still like the interpretation that it refers to the obstinate sinner, though. Even such a one may repent.

Also, rather than get caught up in one verse, I think we need to look at the message of the New Testament as a whole.

If we want to see an example of a repentant follower of Christ, we need look no further than Peter, who denied Christ three times. Yet Christ restored him.

Regarding the categorization of sin into venial and mortal, we know that--although sin is sin--there are degrees of culpability. For example, the destitute man who steals an apple from an orchard tree is less culpable than the thief who steals out of greed.

BTW, I meant to Edit rather than Quote myself.

 

[98cwitr]

"If we want to see an example of a repentant follower of Christ, we need look no further than Peter, who denied Christ three times. Yet Christ restored him."

This was pre-Pentecost though...I find that to hold some weight and also provide some context. To your own point though, Peter was a bit mistaken during Paul's rebuke to him.

 

[weariedsoul]

This verse may express the perfect ideal. The one born of God that John refers to may be the Christian whose spiritual progress has led him to perfection, which I think is very rare. Otherwise, we would have no need of the repentance (of sinning Christians) that the Bible talks about elsewhere. I still like the interpretation that it refers to the obstinate sinner, though. Even such a one may repent.

Also, rather than get caught up in one verse, I think we need to look at the message of the New Testament as a whole.

If we want to see an example of a repentant follower of Christ, we need look no further than Peter, who denied Christ three times. Yet Christ restored him.

God is merciful, i think it may have deeply grieved peter when he denied Christ, i'll bet he humbled himself in prayer and wept. How could God not show mercy? God gives grace to the humble, God is near them that have a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart.

Psa_34:18 The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

 

[Standing Up]

Regarding the categorization of sin into venial and mortal, we know that--although sin is sin--there are degrees of culpability. For example, the destitute man who steals an apple from an orchard tree is less culpable than the thief who steals out of greed.

BTW, I meant to Edit rather than Quote myself.

Believe the idea was, if you break one law (of the Mosaic 616 laws), you've broken them all. The "walk the plank" of degrees-of-sin idea, is it biblical you think?

 

[steve_bakr]

Believe the idea was, if you break one law (of the Mosaic 616 laws), you've broken them all. The "walk the plank" of degrees-of-sin idea, is it biblical you think?

It is necessary to say that even a small sin makes one a sinner, so that no one use any occasion to sin. If you look at a woman with lust, it is as if you committed adultery. That is so there will be no occasion of sin.

In another sense, it is better that you restrained yourself from the act. The reason is, the much more serious sin would incur greater harm to others and yourself. That sin is more serious which causes more harm.

 

[christseeker45]

Could you explain? Thanks!

Well you and to be ir a lot of Catholics assume that only Catholics have that view of sin and the Protestants have this OSAS idea. The truth is that most Protestants do not believe in once saved always saved and they do believe that you can fall out of friendship with God to use a Catholic phrase. That is what I mean that is not just a Catholic position

 

[weariedsoul]

It is necessary to say that even a small sin makes one a sinner, so that no one use any occasion to sin. If you look at a woman with lust, it is as if you committed adultery. That is so there will be no occasion of sin.

In another sense, it is better that you restrained yourself from the act. The reason is, the much more serious sin would incur greater harm to others and yourself. That sin is more serious which causes more harm.

Jesus said go and sin no more comes to mind.

 

[Standing Up]

It is necessary to say that even a small sin makes one a sinner, so that no one use any occasion to sin. If you look at a woman with lust, it is as if you committed adultery. That is so there will be no occasion of sin.

In another sense, it is better that you restrained yourself from the act. The reason is, the much more serious sin would incur greater harm to others and yourself. That sin is more serious which causes more harm.

Yes, that's the point I was making. There's the vertical relationship between you and God and the horizontal relationship between you and fellow Christians.

In Paul's explanation about the Corinthian brother and his stepmother, there's no question about it being a big or small sin (relationship to salvation), but that it was hurting the fellowship (relationship to Christians).

RC apparently believes there are degrees of sin that as such, could lead a Christian (born-again believer) to hell. Sin is sin; the bible says you'll be saved but as through fire. So, if a marian dogma is necessary for your salvation, you need to exclude those who don't believe it. NOT because you're right and they're going to hell, but because it hurts the community. 'Course you also lose the benefit of the whole Body. In the meantime, those who are also Christian but don't believe it are still as saved as those who do believe it. IOW, Christ died for our sins (even a so-called venial sin); regardless of how you define sin, though I view it as sin is sin (break a tiny law and you break the whole thing), it doesn't change that fact of His redemptive finished work.

PS. To bring this to the present, it is the same deal with pedophile priests. The issue isn't whether they were saved or not (sins after baptism), or just a "little mortal sin", the issue SHOULD HAVE BEEN they were harming Christians in your fellowship. Get rid of them as Paul commanded.

 

[steve_bakr]

Yes, that's the point I was making. There's the vertical relationship between you and God and the horizontal relationship between you and fellow Christians.

In Paul's explanation about the Corinthian brother and his stepmother, there's no question about it being a big or small sin (relationship to salvation), but that it was hurting the fellowship (relationship to Christians).

RC apparently believes there are degrees of sin that as such, could lead a Christian (born-again believer) to hell. Sin is sin; the bible says you'll be saved but as through fire. So, if a marian dogma is necessary for your salvation, you need to exclude those who don't believe it. NOT because you're right and they're going to hell, but because it hurts the community. 'Course you also lose the benefit of the whole Body. In the meantime, those who are also Christian but don't believe it are still as saved as those who do believe it. IOW, Christ died for our sins (even a so-called venial sin); regardless of how you define sin, though I view it as sin is sin (break a tiny law and you break the whole thing), it doesn't change that fact of His redemptive finished work.

PS. To bring this to the present, it is the same deal with pedophile priests. The issue isn't whether they were saved or not, just a "little sin", the issue SHOULD HAVE BEEN they were harming Christians in your fellowship. Get rid of them as Paul commanded.

Yes, we believe sin is sin, but some sins are more serious than others.

Catholic teaching is that Protestants are Christians too. I'm married to an Evangelical Christian. It's called a "mixed marriage." Seriously.

I must say that bringing up pedophile priests seems gratuitous and out of place in this thread.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes, we believe sin is sin, but some sins are more serious than others.

Catholic teaching is that Protestants are Christians too. I'm married to an Evangelical Christian. It's called a "mixed marriage." Seriously.

We know. I appreciate the obvious turmoil it must cause, unless of course, your wife believes the pope infallible and 4 marian dogmas, in which case perhaps she's really RC. If not, then 'de fide' things must really be a problem. I sincerely hope, and say with all due respect, you figure it out.

I must say that bringing up pedophile priests seems gratuitous and out of place in this thread.

It's what the concept led to. I bring it up to press the point----break one little law, you've broken the whole law. What's your solution? Redefine the concept of sin. Where did that lead? Where does it still lead?

There's the horizontal and vertical relationships. We try to keep them in context.

 

[New_Wineskin]

There are a lot of apples and oranges in that ...
The view of "sin" is different in both - as well as the idea of a differentiation between sins being serious or not .
The view of water baptism is different
the views of repentance and forgiveness are different
the view of what is "friendship with God" is different

So , the two views of how all of those other views interact with each other are far different than what is presented .

Can you expound your post in a bit more detail? Thanks!

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 .

 

[steve_bakr]

We know. I appreciate the obvious turmoil it must cause, unless of course, your wife believes the pope infallible and 4 marian dogmas, in which case perhaps she's really RC. If not, then 'de fide' things must really be a problem. I sincerely hope, and say with all due respect, you figure it out.

It's what the concept led to. I bring it up to press the point----break one little law, you've broken the whole law. What's your solution? Redefine the concept of sin. Where did that lead? Where does it still lead?

There's the horizontal and vertical relationships. We try to keep them in context.

Believe it or not, religion causes no conflict whatsoever in my marriage, perhaps because we relate to each other on the basis of what our faiths hold in common, the center of which is Jesus Christ.

I held back on becoming a Catholic until my wife felt she could support me in that pursuit. That took about six years, until God moved her to do so. But I placed my marriage ahead of what faith tradition I chose to follow, and attended a Protestant Church with her. In that I had the support of the Spiritual Director at the Benedictine Monastery of the Risen Christ.

When I became Catholic, my wife supported me all the way. She attended my Confirmation. Our best "couple" friends are Catholics, and we talk about each others Churches with no conflicts.

Such a good relationship is not suggestive of either her being a closet Catholic or my being a closet Evangelical Christian--or of either of us being anything other than what we profess before God to be.

I personally don't hold the view that Protestants are required to believe in Marian dogmas or the authority of the Pope in order to attain to salvation. Neither is that the current position of the Catholic Church.

I still feel that your bringing up pedophile priests is out of place and gratuitous in this thread. The problem is not connected to our view of sin, which--if you know about Catholicism--includes the vertical element. The process of Confession includes reconciliation of the sinner to God and the community.

Nevertheless, perhaps it is best to address the subject.

Pedophelia is a predatory crime, and all credible complaints need to be investigated by appropriate law enforcement agencies, after which prosecuted in the courts.

If Church staff or even Bishops do not turn these cases in to law enforcement, they can be subject to prosecution.

Currently, children may well be safer in a Catholic Church than other Churches, given the policies that are now in place.

Pedophilia and sexual abuse are not specifically Catholic issues. When I was younger, the youngest daughter of the Pastor of the Protestant Church I attended revealed that he had raped her older sister and attempted to rape her. He attributed it to a curse placed on his family by a witch. The pastor was neither prosecuted nor fired.

We should appropriately attribute these evils to man's fallen nature, and treat crimes as such.

I hope I have adequately addressed these issues. I do so in good faith, assuming the overall sincerity of your intentions, and which I pray to be the case.

 

[Standing Up]

Believe it or not, religion causes no conflict whatsoever in my marriage, perhaps because we relate to each other on the basis of what our faiths hold in common, the center of which is Jesus Christ.

Great. Glad to hear.

I held back on becoming a Catholic until my wife felt she could support me in that pursuit. That took about six years, until God moved her to do so. But I placed my marriage ahead of what faith tradition I chose to follow, and attended a Protestant Church with her. In that I had the support of the Spiritual Director at the Benedictine Monastery of the Risen Christ.

When I became Catholic, my wife supported me all the way. She attended my Confirmation. Our best "couple" friends are Catholics, and we talk about each others Churches with no conflicts.

Such a good relationship is not suggestive of either of us being closet Catholics or Evangelical Christians, or anything other than what we profess before God to be.

I personally don't hold the view that Protestants are required to believe in Marian dogmas or the authority of the Pope in order to attain to salvation. Neither is that the current position of the Catholic Church.

Well, good luck with that. Maybe a pre-Vat II RCer will correct you.

I still feel that your bringing up pedophile priests is out of place and gratuitous in this thread. The problem is not connected to our view of sin, which--if you know about Catholicism--includes the vertical element. The process of Confession includes reconciliation of the sinner to God and the community.

I spent a little time on OBOB. They are thoroughly convinced that the pedophile priest is still RC and, unless true repentance takes place, could easily go to hell. Frankly, I just don't know how that would work to send a born-again Christian to hell, but maybe my terms/definitions are confused. IIRC Paul said "so-called brother".

Anyway, like on OBOB, I tried here to suggest that the point wasn't whether someone was or wasn't a priest, a brother, a christian, saved or not, big/little or mortal/venial sin, the point was to exclude the person from fellowship. The sin was getting in the way of horizontal relationships. BUT, because of the little---big sin differentiation, because of the priest position, the conduct was permitted to continue.

It's your group that somehow redefines the idea of big/little sin, when we both know the bible is clear----break one and you've broke them all. This is why it is only possible to be saved by grace of God the Father through faith in His Son. But we all still sin. The issue isn't the vertical question, it is the horizontal one. IMO the two have been conflated and confusion sown, leading to what was reaped.

We agree about the rest of your post. Safeguards of behaviour may be in place, but has the theology been addressed?

So, sins after baptism ... yep, what's the theology?

 

[steve_bakr]

Great. Glad to hear.

Well, good luck with that. Maybe a pre-Vat II RCer will correct you.

I spent a little time on OBOB. They are thoroughly convinced that the pedophile priest is still RC and, unless true repentance takes place, could easily go to hell. Frankly, I just don't know how that would work to send a born-again Christian to hell, but maybe my terms/definitions are confused.

Anyway, like there, I tried to suggest that the point wasn't whether someone was or wasn't a priest, a brother, a christian, saved or not, big/little or mortal/venial sin, the point was to exclude the person from fellowship. The sin was getting in the way of horizontal relationships. BUT, because of the little---big sin differentiation, because of the priest position, the conduct was permitted to continue.

It's your group that somehow redefines the idea of big/little sin, when we both know the bible is clear----break one and you've broke them all. This is why it is only possible to be saved by faith through grace. But we all still sin. The issue isn't the vertical question, it is the horizontal one. IMO the two have been conflated and confusion sown, leading to what was reaped.

We agree about the rest of your post. Safeguards of behaviour may be in place, but has the theology been addressed?

So, sins after baptism ... yep, what's the theology?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[christseeker45]

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.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

It seems to be a pity that Jesus appears to have been infected with the OSAS virus, as well.

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

 

[christseeker45]

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

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It seems to be a pity that Jesus appears to have been infected with the OSAS virus, as well.

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

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

I'm not a Calvinist and I don't believe in either the perseverance or OSAS interpretations, but it is fairly suggestive. Care to show how it isn't teaching eternal security?

 

[christseeker45]

One still has free will.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

One still has free will.

Well, this was disappointing.