1 John 5:16-17, Deadly Sins

[cascherman]

My question is about 1 John 5:16-17.

I was recently talking to a protestant friend of mine (actually a best friend) about my Catholic journey, and I was explaining it all to him. And eventually it came down to nit-picking away at various Catholic doctrine, as it always seems to for me at least.

He disagreed with Mortal and Venial sins. I brought out 1 John 5:16-17 to show that the idea is in the bible. Well, he pulls out his bible (NIV) and instead of saying (from my NAB) “…There is such a thing as deadly sin…” it says in the NIV “There is a sin that leads to death”. Making it a singular, distinct sin instead of plural sins. And he declared that this means the sin it refers to is the same as the one in Mark about sin against the Holy Spirit. Making only ONE sin that is differentiated, and he accepted that ONE sin’s difference due to reference with Mark’s Gospel.

From here I lost my train of thought and couldn’t reconcile mortal and venial sins using 1 john anymore.

So my question is this… has my protestant friend ruined the argument of 1 John 5:16-17 for me. Meaning, since he adheres to the NIV and him having an attitude of… ‘if his bible says it one way thats how it is’… is there still an argument for M. and V. sins in this verse?

 

[pyropam]

My question is about 1 John 5:16-17.

I was recently talking to a protestant friend of mine (actually a best friend) about my Catholic journey, and I was explaining it all to him. And eventually it came down to nit-picking away at various Catholic doctrine, as it always seems to for me at least.

He disagreed with Mortal and Venial sins. I brought out 1 John 5:16-17 to show that the idea is in the bible. Well, he pulls out his bible (NIV) and instead of saying (from my NAB) “…There is such a thing as deadly sin…” it says in the NIV “There is a sin that leads to death”. Making it a singular, distinct sin instead of plural sins. And he declared that this means the sin it refers to is the same as the one in Mark about sin against the Holy Spirit. Making only ONE sin that is differentiated, and he accepted that ONE sin’s difference due to reference with Mark’s Gospel.

From here I lost my train of thought and couldn’t reconcile mortal and venial sins using 1 john anymore.

So my question is this… has my protestant friend ruined the argument of 1 John 5:16-17 for me. Meaning, since he adheres to the NIV and him having an attitude of… ‘if his bible says it one way thats how it is’… is there still an argument for M. and V. sins in this verse?

**SIN in this text is plural, not singular. We were not born into sins, we were born into SIN. If I say that I am living in sin, it doesn’t mean just 1 sin. **

 

[Sabda]

Do not be surprised if your Protestant friend refuses to see this. I have dealt with this with Protestants and it’s been my experience that they simply do not want to see it. If they can’t see it, then it doesn’t exist. I would just plant your seeds and move on. The Holy Spirit will do the rest.

Also if you look at St Paul’s list of who will not inherit the Kingdom of God you’ll find that it’s more than one sin. In fact he list 10 different types of sins.

1 Cor 6:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11
That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Doing any of the things listed will exclude you from the Kingdom of God. And just what exactly is the Kingdom of God?

 

[juliamajor]

Many scholars will not use the NIV because it was created by and for Evangelicals so it has a definite bias.if you want a good scholarly bible use RSV which agrees with the NAB. Besides John is not talking about physical death but spiritual-which fits with mortal and venial sins