Venial and Mortal Sin?
- Thread starter Adelphos
- Start date
- Status
Adelphos
Puritan Board Freshman
That is what I thought too! So why does the Catholic Church insist on defining and redefining everything? They do the same thing with the Grace of God. They have so many categories and subcategories of sin and Grace, it makes one wonder if it is Grace at all.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
They see grace as a commodity that is kept in a large storehouse. The saints had an extra abundance of grace and it had to be collected and stored somewhere.
Peter and the 'other' popes who followed are able to dip into that storehouse and dispense grace to others. Many times this is done through indulgences.
Grace is still unmerited because 'you' didn't earn it, someone else did.
Peter and the 'other' popes who followed are able to dip into that storehouse and dispense grace to others. Many times this is done through indulgences.
Grace is still unmerited because 'you' didn't earn it, someone else did.
Staphlobob
Puritan Board Sophomore
It's also a good money-maker for them. Luther found this out in his own day. Because venial sins send one only to purgatory, it's then possible to purchase an indulgence to get them (or yourself in the future) out of their sooner - or immediately.
And don't think indulgences have been done away with by the papists. Ever heard of - or bought - a mass card? The more you pay, the more prayers are said for the dead, and the sooner they'll graduate.
Adelphos
Puritan Board Freshman
I suppose one could also add that since Catholicism falls under the category of semi-pelagian, the parsing of sin(s) into categories keeps the papists in line so that they won't lose their salvation! That is why missing Mass is regarded as a Mortal Sin. If you miss Mass (and it wasn't due to an emergency or an illness) your soul is in jeopardy of going to hell... where's the Grace man?
Rich Koster
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
SemperEruditio
Puritan Board Junior
1 John 5:16-17
If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'll be honest...I've given all the brightest RC apologists a fair hearing..Hahn, Sungenis, Keating, etc. I just don't understand how they can reconcile all of the teachings of presumbaly infallible councils and popes. Just compare the Council of Trent to Vatican II and you would think those documents came from two different churches. For the Council of Trent the only people for whom salvation is possible are in the RC and by Vatican II, not only Protestants, but Muslims too are included in the covenant:
Canon 9 of the 6th session of the Council of Trent:
"CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
From Lumen Gentium:
"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."
I sincerely have no idea how to reconcile these infallible statements. Perhaps (to borrow a Van Til category) it's "apparent paradox".
Canon 9 of the 6th session of the Council of Trent:
"CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
From Lumen Gentium:
"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."
I sincerely have no idea how to reconcile these infallible statements. Perhaps (to borrow a Van Til category) it's "apparent paradox".
Last edited:
"Sin that doesn't lead to death," is sin that is covered by the blood of Jesus, sin that has been forgiven. John is concerned that we pray for our brothers in Christ who still sin (that would be everybody--we all continue to need these prayers). We all need "help" to repent as we should.
PresbyDane
Puritanboard Doctor
Adelphos
Puritan Board Freshman
jaybird0827
PuritanBoard Honor Roll
The Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it rather tersely in terms of Scripture:
Last edited:
SemperEruditio
Puritan Board Junior
If what you are saying is true then all sin does not lead to death. The only sin I know of not covered is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. So is John saying that we should pray for our brothers still in sin but not those who have sinned against the Spirit? Which sins lead to to death and which do not? If there are sins which lead to death and sins which do not then this verse validates the RC doctrine, correct? This would be in line with the WSC on the heinous nature of some sin and not all. If this is the case then there are forgivable sins and a mortal sin. yes/no?
Frank,
your post is full of questions (?,?,?,...) and preconceptions which you haven't made explicit. I don't really know if I am even answering you.
Let me simply point out that the TEXT of 1 Jn.5:16-17 says "There is sin that does not lead to death." So this statement or yours:
You are also bringing another text to bear on this text, Mark 3:29. Perhaps these verses are not talking about the same things at all. A question that comes to my mind: how can a "brother" commit the unforgivable sin? Is John talking about a false brother? A professing Christian of indeterminate heart-condition?
In other words,, I don't think a true Christian can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. I do think that falling into ANY sin could be the doorway to apostasy, and the departure of those who were never of us (1Jn.2:19). Which is why we should always pray for our brothers to repent.
If you ever happen to know which person is irretrievable backslid, or which unbeliever has permanently cut himself off from grace, then I guess you can stop praying for him. But I don't know how you could possibly know that apart from special revelation.
My present interpretation of John's statement in v16 that we shouldn't pray for sin leading to death, is that once a person is dead, we have no reason to pray for their repentance. Either ALL their sin is under Christ, it is all forgiven; and they no longer repent of sin, being free from it; or else they are lost, in hell, and will never repent of ALL their past, present, or future sins as they go on sinning into eternity.
John is telling us not to pray for the dead.
The rest of your questions are still a little incoherent to me. So I will just say that sins of greater or lesser severity, according the the West.Stds. have nothing to do with the RCC "mortal/venial" distinction. And as I said, I don't think that Christ (in Mark's Gospel) and John (in his letter) are having the same discussion.
Blessings
your post is full of questions (?,?,?,...) and preconceptions which you haven't made explicit. I don't really know if I am even answering you.
Let me simply point out that the TEXT of 1 Jn.5:16-17 says "There is sin that does not lead to death." So this statement or yours:
kind of credits ME with being able to read English. You even quoted a translation that, unlike the KJV, refrains from adding the indefinite article. So is it "sin" here? I think so. But you seem to me to be leaning toward the reading "A sin."
You are also bringing another text to bear on this text, Mark 3:29. Perhaps these verses are not talking about the same things at all. A question that comes to my mind: how can a "brother" commit the unforgivable sin? Is John talking about a false brother? A professing Christian of indeterminate heart-condition?
In other words,, I don't think a true Christian can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. I do think that falling into ANY sin could be the doorway to apostasy, and the departure of those who were never of us (1Jn.2:19). Which is why we should always pray for our brothers to repent.
If you ever happen to know which person is irretrievable backslid, or which unbeliever has permanently cut himself off from grace, then I guess you can stop praying for him. But I don't know how you could possibly know that apart from special revelation.
My present interpretation of John's statement in v16 that we shouldn't pray for sin leading to death, is that once a person is dead, we have no reason to pray for their repentance. Either ALL their sin is under Christ, it is all forgiven; and they no longer repent of sin, being free from it; or else they are lost, in hell, and will never repent of ALL their past, present, or future sins as they go on sinning into eternity.
John is telling us not to pray for the dead.
The rest of your questions are still a little incoherent to me. So I will just say that sins of greater or lesser severity, according the the West.Stds. have nothing to do with the RCC "mortal/venial" distinction. And as I said, I don't think that Christ (in Mark's Gospel) and John (in his letter) are having the same discussion.
Blessings
TsonMariytho
Puritan Board Freshman
Apparently some Catholic theologians[1] have said that 1 Jn 5:17 is not at face value referring to the RC venial / mortal distinction. They see the implication of the passage as saying that if you don't pray for the brother, then the sin may lead to death, whereas if you pray, then "God will give him life". Since venial sins don't ever lead to death by definition in their theology, such theologians are forced (no doubt with regrets) to abandon that passage as a proof text for the existence of venial sins.
Now if they would just pay attention to Dr. White (video clip posted recently), they would see their other big proof text wrested from their grip. :^)
[1] See commentary at: NEW ADVENT BIBLE: 1 John 5
Now if they would just pay attention to Dr. White (video clip posted recently), they would see their other big proof text wrested from their grip. :^)
[1] See commentary at: NEW ADVENT BIBLE: 1 John 5
SemperEruditio
Puritan Board Junior
Bruce,
My apologies with the confusion. I cannot articulate it correctly because I don't buy into it myself and can't remember the logic used. I had a priest explain the mortal/venial sin issue using the verses in 1 John. He did not do it well and I was just going off of memory from a conversation over 25 years ago.
My apologies with the confusion. I cannot articulate it correctly because I don't buy into it myself and can't remember the logic used. I had a priest explain the mortal/venial sin issue using the verses in 1 John. He did not do it well and I was just going off of memory from a conversation over 25 years ago.
- Status
