# 1 John 5:17 and Roman Catholic claims of mortal and venial sins



## CDM (Mar 16, 2006)

Many are aware of what Rome teaches about sins, namely mortal and venial. RC's often quote 1 John 5:17 for proof.

Often times my refutations can be long-winded for the average person. What is the best way to refute this in a short, concise manner. And while you're at it, what is the proper exegesis of this portion of scripture?

The immediate context is found in John 5:13-20:

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.

16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life"”to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. *17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.*
18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

Any takers?

-Chris


----------



## CDM (Mar 16, 2006)

Anyone? C'mon, Help a brother out.

:crickets:


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 16, 2006)

even granting their argument, and given the data from the text, they still aer not allowed, exegetially speaking, to say what venial and mortal sins are.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 16, 2006)

An Ebionite I ran into argued that this text showed that either the Jewish legal code was still binding or that John thought of it as such (details are a little fuzzy at the moment).
So there were sins in the Jewish economy that demanded a death penalty; and sins that didn't.
I doubt this is helpful; but it is a different angle.


----------



## historyb (Mar 16, 2006)

> MORTAL SIN AND VENIAL SIN
> 
> The Problem: Fundamentalists and evangelicals often claim that all sins are equally heinous before God - stealing a penny is as bad as slaughtering an entire household.
> 
> ...



Here



> These two categories of sin are explicitly to be found in Sacred Scripture. In the Old Covenant there were sins that merited the death penalty and sins that could be expiated by an offering. This Law was a teacher that prepared the way for the faith (Gal. 3:24). In the New Covenant these material categories are replaced by spiritual ones, natural death by eternal death. There are thus daily faults for which we must daily ask forgiveness (Mt. 6:12), for even the "just man falls seven times a day" (Prov. 24:16), and mortal faults that separate the sinner from God (1 Cor. 6:9-10) for all eternity.



Here


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 16, 2006)

Protestants acknowledge a gradation of sin (cf. 1 John 5.16-17; WLC 150). But Protestants insist:


> Here they take refuge in the absurd distinction that some sins are venial and others mortal; that for the latter a weighty satisfaction is due, but that the former are purged by easier remedies; by the Lord's Prayer, the sprinkling of holy water, and the absolution of the Mass. Thus they insult and trifle with God.36[3] And yet, though they have the terms venial and mortal sin continually in their mouth, they have not yet been able to distinguish the one from the other, except by making impiety and impurity of heart36[4] to be venial sin. We, on the contrary, taught by the Scripture standard of righteousness and unrighteousness, declare that "the wages of sin is death;" and that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die," (Rom. 6:23; Ezek. 18:20). The sins of believers are venial, not because they do not merit death, but because by the mercy of God there is "now no condemnation to those which are in Christ Jesus" their sin being not imputed, but effaced by pardon."' (John Calvin, _Institutes_, 3.4.28).



Matthew Poole []:



> 1 John 5:17. He intimates they should be cautious of all sin, especially more deliberate, (which the word a)diki/a seems to import,) but would not have them account that every sin would make their case so hopeless, as such sin, which he called sinning unto death, would do.



Matthew Henry [John Reynolds]:



> Then, 5. The apostle seems to argue that there is sin that is not unto death; thus, All unrighteousness is sin (1 John 5:17); but, were all unrighteousness unto death (since we have all some unrighteousness towards God or man, or both, in omitting and neglecting something that is their due), then we were all peremptorily bound over to death, and, since it is not so (the Christian brethren, generally speaking, having right to life), there must be sin that is not to death. Though there is no venial sin (in the common acceptation), there is pardoned sin, sin that does not involve a plenary obligation to eternal death. If it were not so, there could be no justification nor continuance of the justified state. The gospel constitution or covenant abbreviates, abridges, or rescinds the guilt of sin.



Thomas Boston, _Works_, Vol. II, _Of Man's Inability to Keep the Law Perfectly_:



> _Objection_:But is it not said, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin?" 1 John 3:9.
> 
> _Answer_. The meaning is not, that the saints do not sin at all; but that they do not commit sin with the full consent of the will; do not take pleasure and delight in it; do not make a trade of it, as unregenerate persons do; and do not commit the sin unto death, 1 John 5:17-18.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 16, 2006)

Andrew... you're a PROTESTANT?!?


----------



## CDM (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Protestants acknowledge a gradation of sin (cf. 1 John 5.16-17; WLC 150). But Protestants insist:
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info. 

It is hard to correct faithful RC's as this is what their church teaches. They don't see the Word of God as THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. So, in their religion, God's words _can_ be trifled with. 

They see the Pope as their Holy Father, and his words carry more weight.


----------



## historyb (Mar 17, 2006)

Really do tell, and where did you learn this fairy tale from lad?



> 135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God"




Here

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by historyb]


----------



## CDM (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by history_
> Really do tell, and where did you learn this message of errors?



Do tell what? I am not sure what you are requesting.

If what you mean by "message of errors" to be Romes doctrine, well, I learned it from Rome and her Supreme Head - the self-entitled Vicar of Christ known as the Pope to her faithful. Or Holy Father, of Supreme Pontiff or any of the exalted names he claims for himself. From Rome's catechism, her councils, history, etc. 

I also learn Rome's teachings from my Roman Catholic Aunts and Uncles (12+), Grandmother, Grandfather, cousins and their wives (15+), and second cousins and their wives (20+). But, as you may suspect they, in many cases, are most ignorant of what Rome binds them to.

For example, upon the passing of my Grandfather a month ago, there were great opportunities to discuss differences between Rome's gospel and Christ's gospel. My grandmother's sister, a devout RC for 50+ years, corrected me in public that "It is not a teaching of the Church (Roman) that the faithful MUST believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary or the other Marian teachings." "That's opinions of certain Popes, they have not been said ex cathedra (from the chair). She continued, "Besides, the Pope has only spoken 2 or 3 times ex cathedra." All "the faithful" nodding in agreement. Now, I don't believe she was lying, she is just ignorant that the one of the"2 or 3" times (if I grant that number) the Pope spoke "from the chair," it directly concerned Mary:

Pope Pius XII´s apostolic constitution defining the dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary´s assumption body and soul into heaven, Munificentissimus Deus, # 44, states: 

"œ... we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

Taking their catechism, I turned to the Marian teaching sections found throughout. Upon reading the affirmation of the doctrine, they remained unmoved. I told them this was Roman "dogma." To which they simply denied it.

I have noticed by your sig that you are Roman Catholic and under the Pope in Rome's authority. Maybe you can help me. Is it not true that the faithful M U S T believe and affirm the 3 Marian dogmas? Further, is not the RC catechism "binding" on the souls of Christians universal. Are the catechism and Councils (Trent for example) mere opinion or is it not what M U S T be believed in order to be in fellowship with the Roman Catholic church?

I apologize [Moderators] if I have gone too far off topic on this thread.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by mangum]


----------



## historyb (Mar 17, 2006)

We should start a new theard


----------



## CDM (Mar 17, 2006)

ok. Care to start it or should I? By the way, I am unclear about the official number of Marian dogmas as many sources splice them into sub groups.

I know of 5 (and the movement for 6), but the others may not be dogma yet, correct? I understand there to be five:

1- The Mother of God

2- Ever-Virgin

3- The Immaculate Conception

4- The Assumption

5- The Mother of the Church

I have to run but I'll check back. I may not be able to respond or start a new thread until Monday though.

Take care,

Chris


----------



## historyb (Mar 17, 2006)

Nice try lead down a false path. Let's stick to what you orginally said which was :



> It is hard to correct faithful RC's as this is what their church teaches. They don't see the Word of God as THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. So, in their religion, God's words can be trifled with.
> 
> They see the Pope as their Holy Father, and his words carry more weight



I have seen this red herring before and I've even used it meself, start another topic so the first which the starter has no basis for gets dropped. Before we continue you need to prove your oringinal point. A point which even the Catecism of the Catholic Chruch refutes. 

As an aside I know about being short on time, I have a VB .Net class that is starting Sunday (which I don't like) and I'll be swapped with homework again.  So I'll only be able to come back during free times. (free time what's that?  )


----------



## CDM (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by historyb_
> Nice try lead down a false path. Let's stick to what you orginally said which was :
> 
> 
> ...



Sir, you must of misunderstood me. I did not attempt to "lead anyone down a false path." It is apparent you are already on "high alert" so I will make a more concerted attempt to be clear in my motives and reasonings while conversing with you (and others) on this matter. As I understand it, you have accused me of trickery and deceit. This is not true. 

As anyone can see, my writing went off on a tangent with my family and their Roman Catholic / Marian beliefs. This is why I continued with it. Not because I am a deceiver, sir. My last post was purely inquisitive and meant to be received as ensuring I am correct in my understanding of your church's position. 

Now, to live up to my promise of making a "more concerted attempt to be clear: I will gladly *only* talk about what you wish. It seems that maybe you should make the new thread lest I'm accused of worse.

If not, I'll make the thread anyway. 

And please, I mean no disrespect, but would you please be more precise and explanatory? This will help all participating. For example, you said something I wrote was a "red herring." 

Did you mean this -->"...They don't see the Word of God as THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. So, in their religion, God's words can be trifled with." 

Or did you mean this --> "They see the Pope as their Holy Father, and his words carry more weight"

Or both?


----------



## historyb (Mar 17, 2006)

both, I referd to the whole sentence. My bad for not clarifing and I am sorry if I did wrong to your posts. 

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by historyb]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2006)

HistoryB you have an urgent u2u...........


----------



## CDM (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by historyb_
> both, I referd to the whole sentence. My bad for not clarifing and I am sorry if I did wrong to your posts.
> 
> [Edited on 3-17-2006 by historyb]



Ok. You meant all the sentences. I see. 

I don't mean to nitpick, but let's get this straight. You didn't do wrong to my post. You wronged my person. You accused me of being a treacherous deceiver behaving like yourself according to your own words, "I have seen this red herring before and I've even used it meself." 

If you are apologizing for this, than I wholeheartedly accept. Thank you and I commend you for doing this on a public forum. Thankfully, we can move on from this distraction.

Now, you suggested we make a new thread to which I agreed. Any suggestions? How about _Rome´s teaching of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture makes God's word subordinate to the Pope_

I would focus in on the Catechism of the Catholic Church's teaching on Authority. Then maybe Rome´s track record for contradicting it by her "œSacred Tradition." This would be the main premise: Rome´s teaching of "dual" authorities is inherently self-contradictory. Which, in practical terms, makes their reverence for God's Word lip service. 

I am aware of what Rome says and teaches. But I tend to focus on actions and not words. In the same way, I am aware of what the Mormons say about the Bible. Yet, it is apparent that the Bible is subjugated by their traditions. If the Bible should conflict with their "revealed" tradition, which one do you suppose has primacy?

Same with Rome.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 17, 2006)

> Doug Wilson
> Hemet, Ca
> Our Lady of the valley Catholic Church



. . . Papistboard?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2006)

His posting priviledges have been revoked.


----------

