R
ralphinal
Guest
Interesting take. How is ignoring the Holy Spirit the same as Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?
“No sin can separate us from Him (God), even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”
- Status
S
SyCarl
Guest
I think that Luther was talking about sins of those who have faith. To me the sin against the Holy Spirit is rejecting the offer of forgiveness by refusing to have faith. For those who do believe there is no sin too great that God will not forgive it. Luither was writing in a context of faith and repentance.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I’m not even a linguist in English, but I had to have enough German to do post-doctoral work in liturgical and sacramental theology. Most of what I read of Luther were his seminal writings, some of his sermons, his Commentary on Romans, and the Marburg Colloquy (debate of Real Presence between Luther and Zwingli). And I had all the tests and papers I needed, thanks.
Any theological writings during the post-Renaissance, pre-Reformation and Reformation era - Catholic and Protestant alike - have to be read very carefully. It was the scholastic style of the day to write with polemic and rhetoric, and you have to trudge through it to “get it” oftentimes, especially when it’s translated into English.
R
ralphinal
Guest
And I have always read that the sin against the Holy Spirit was attributing to Satan that which was from God: i.e. saying Jesus was possessed.
I do agree that there is no sin that can separate us if we repent, save that one unforgivable one.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I think that there is no sin that cannot be forgiven (except the “unforgiveable” sin of rejecting the Holy Spirit). But I do not think that this argument supports the doctrine of OSAS (sometimes called the persistence of the saints by protestants) that some protestant denominations teach.
Peace,
-Robert
Do you agree with this Martin Luther quote? -
“No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”
“Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter from Luther to Melanchthon”.– c.1521)
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello VWcrazy,
Good point and yes, I have heard the same thing, that forgiveness is not required. However, because of the Protestant error, which is “personal interpretation”, non-Catholic Christians and Protestants “interpret” those things, which have “already been interpreted”.
There exists more infighting in Protestantism, where they fight among themselves then there is between Protestants and Catholics.
Therefore, depending on who you ask, there are many different “interpretations” of “OSAS” and countless other different “interpretations” of everything else “Christian”.
In other words, from the beginning, there were divisions and sub-divisions in Protestantism, which go all the way back to the Protestant Reformation or the “Protestant Movement”.
There were those who came to conclusions, based on their own “personal interpretation” of Sacred Scripture, which were contrary to Luther’s “interpretations”.
Most here, are aware of Calvin’s break from Luther. Calvin and others, at that time, broke from Luther and then there were those who broke from Calvin and so on… and so on… and so on….where now, Luther wouldn’t “recognize” many Christian denominations today and he would probably declare many of today’s “Christian beliefs” to be heretical.
Today, there are Protestants who will claim, that once a person is “Saved”, nothing else is required, including, “asking for forgiveness” and some will assert – “it is required”. Then, there are some Protestant Christians, who will say that if you are “truly Saved”, then you are incapable of sinning.
I got news for you people; there can be only one version of an absolute “truth”.
Catholicism represents the Full Deposit of Faith and that is where Christian Truth is found.
Everything that is true in another denomination represents a truth but as a whole, other Christian denominations fall short, because of the totality of their beliefs, which amount to a partial truth.
Peace
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Excellent point James!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
One of the “Rules for Thinking with the Church” at the end of the “Spiritual Exercises” of St. Ignatius Loyola is:
- Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed.
fordham.edu/halsall/source/loyola-spirex.html
Luther’s words are no more immoral than those of St. Paul at the end of Romans 8 - if the Apostle were to write them today in a post on CAF, he would be criticised severely for failing to exclude the implication that sin cannot keep us from Christ.
One does not have to be Lutheran or Protestant to see that Luther is being very unjustly dealt with. As for the theology of the saying, he is absolutely right. If his critics cannot recognise an example of hyperbole when they see one, they are not competent to judge his sayings, for he frequently resorts to this figure of speech in order to emphasise a point.
Not only is he speaking hyperbolically - there are constructions called conditional sentences; this is known (IIRC) as an unreal conditional. The terminology may be unusual, but people use them every day - every time a poster writes “If I were Pope I would do X”, an unreal conditional clause or sentence is used; for the writer is presupposing a condition that is not realised: he or she is not the Pope.
The sentence:
- “No sin can separate us from Him (God), even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”
sets out an unreal condition: "…even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” IOW, we are not doing so. It is not a statement of desire, or of intention, nor is it a wish. It drives home a wonderful & most consoling & strengthening truth: “No sin can separate us from [the Love of God in Christ Jesus]…” It is not Luther’s fault if his readers cannot distinguish between the doctrine he proclaims, & the grammatical & rhetorical means he uses to proclaim it.
N
nsper7
Guest
Excellent point.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello Micheal,
There is some truth to this…but I agree with Catholicism and not with Martin Luther.
Where do you stand and why? With Martin Luther or the Catholic Church, or someone else? Sorry if I missed something but it was hard to tell from your post, which position or which “side” you were taking…If any.
So, where do you stand and why? With Martin Luther or the Catholic Church, or someone else?
I have an opinion, but I would like to hear from you.
Thank you for you post…
Peace
T
thirdn6
Guest
Yeah! But do not send that letter to a terrorist (without the explanation)- my grandma is trembling so much now to even get out of the house!
P
Podo2005
Guest
No, you can’t just sin and then two seconds later say you believe in Christ, it would be a contradiction. Unless as it was stated in several posts that you are truly trying to change your life and live as a Christian. Sin is something that we choose to do that separates us from God, whether we like it or not and in order to get back into a relationship with our Lord we must repent and change our lives.(Even if we keep falling, we just have to get ourselves back up or risk being separated from God forever). God on the other hand never distances Himself from us (despite our sins) because He loves us unconditionally. And if sin wasnt something to worry about ( as according to the above quote it is something that can’t separate us from God) then why did God send his only son Jesus Christ to die on a cross? Sounds kind of cruel if sin does not separate us from God…
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Hello Micheal,
There is some truth to this…but I agree with Catholicism and not with Martin Luther.
Where do you stand and why? With Martin Luther or the Catholic Church, or someone else? Sorry if I missed something but it was hard to tell from your post, which position or which “side” you were taking…If any.
So, where do you stand and why? With Martin Luther or the Catholic Church, or someone else?
I have an opinion, but I would like to hear from you.
Thank you for you post…
Peace
I’m Catholic, in the same sense as you are; & I see no collision between the teaching of the Church, & Luther’s insistence on the inseparability of the believer from Christ.
Luther, to his credit, is taking those last verses of Romans seriously; he is not overlooking them. As St. Paul took the trouble to write them, they have to be taken seriously. Whether the CC avoids overlooking them, is another matter. They certainly don’t get much attention - not like certain parts of Matthew 16.As for Catholic teaching - it often happens that an idea, in the Bible or not, can be taken in more than one sense: that it is condemned, shows - AFAIK - not than an idea is false in all possible senses, but that it is condemned because it has been understood in a false sense. There are propositions in the Bull “Unigenitus Dei Filius” of 1713 which admit of a bad or a good sense, & are condemned, not in all senses, but as bearing a bad one. That they can be meant in a way that is orthodox, is not relevant to the Bull’s purpose; so those senses are uncondemned.
If that is a right understanding of the condemnation of various propositions in “Unigenitus”, why can’t the same reasoning apply to the works of the Reformers ? This would mean (for example) that Trent rightly condemned certain propositions, and that the letter of those propositions could with equal rightness be understood in an innocent & good sense by others. “Salvation by faith alone” is a case in point.
I’m on both “sides” - because the subject matter of this thread does not require one to choose between them. I don’t agree at all with those who think that all their fellow-religionists must side with anything they say, purely because all are Catholics, or whatever. To some that may look like “letting the side down” - but ISTM that Christians should AFA possible be reconciled to one another; “compromise” need not be a dirty word: it need not require sacrifice of sincerity or integrity or principle.
Hope that helps
J
JRKH
Guest
I think I understand what you are getting at here but I still have a problem with the quote as presented in the OP(SNIP)
The first Item, Kill can certainly contain mitigating circumstances such as military/war etc. However, Adultery is another matter.
Whether we are talking about the Physical act, or Adulterous thoughts, this is an act which we have a large amount of control over. Committing this act “Thousands of Times each day” while assuming it does not seperate us from God is simply wrong.
Peace
James
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello JRKH,
Why is that? It is not my quote and I did provide the link…Are you referring to the quote on post number one, here, or another quote?
Peace
J
JRKH
Guest
Jimmy, If you look back at my post you will see that I answered this. If you have additional questions let me know.Hello JRKH,
Why is that? It is not my quote and I did provide the link…Are you referring to the quote on post number one, here, or another quote?
Peace
Peace
James
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
There is nothing that can seperate us from God, no principalities, powers or death… For God loves us… But we can seperate ourselves from God, when we sin against God or our neighbor. Sin leads to death and seperation from God of our own free will. If the once saved theory believes he is without sin, convicts himself of sin, because anyone who believes such a thing, that because he/she is saved is without sin, is a LIAR. And we all know what happens to the father of lies at the end…
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Exactly, “we can seperate ourselves from God”!
And, this could occur by knowingly rejecting Catholic truths, which are also Christian truths, right?
This is because, a conscious rejection of a Christian truth, is a rejection of Christ Himself. The Catholic Church represents, the Full Deposit of Faith and Christian truth.
Am I wrong?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Who can tell the lion of Juda he is wrong? I agree with you, for one, the Catholic church is the body of Jesus Christ. She posseses the power and authority to bind and loose, not to mention the keys of the kingdom of God. The key word is conscious rejection: The father of lies of his freewill rejected Jesus Christ and is eternally damned by God, Today those who reject Jesus or his teachings, may not do so of their own freewill? but are decieved by the wolf in sheeps clothing, their leaders and false man made christian traditions. These are the ones our Lord seeks out. This is why the body of Jesus Christ and his authority is here on earth through Peter our present day Pope and the holy apostolic Catholic church. To be in the Catholic church is to be in the body of Jesus Christ, and it is here, where scripture states that nothing can seperate us from God, not even death. What Catholic of his own free will does a mortal sin to apart from God. To sin of your own freewill seperates oneself from God, not God from the you. That is why Jesus instituted the ministry of reconciliation for his church, in case we are decieved and tempted by the evil one, God allows an avenue for his children to come back home, and in the repentance, all of heaven rejoices.
Sorry , getting carried away about the mercy of God he has for his children.
Peace be with you
- Status