R
rcwitness
Guest
I believe John meant that a person who does not turn from their sins, is not following Jesus.
Actually, in a sense she is correct. The one “truly” born of God would never sin. The problem is, none of use are “truly” born of God. We are born of the world in original sin. When we are born again (in Baptism John 3), our sin (including original sin) is washed away. It is at that point that we become “Children of God”. However, Baptism only washes away sin, it doesn’t wash away the fact that we are still born of the world and live in the world. St. John is not trying to make the point that Christians must become “sinless perfection”. In fact we are told if we claim we are then we are a liar. What he is trying to get at is true believers try to live their lives not dominated by the sins of the world.This is the famous proof text for the mortal and venial sin distinction. My Protestant friend quickly pointed me to the bold part and claimed that it shows that a person truly born of God would never sin. If one is truly a Christian, then God will preserve him to the end or “keep” him (eternal security).
Once Saved, Always Saved only makes sense in terms of after individual judgment. Salvation isn’t a one time event but a process only completed on judgment day. If you already declare your status prior to judgment then there is no need for a judgment day and that goes against scripture.18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
That’s quite an aggressive strategy, and I haven’t thought of it before. Funny thing is that she (and many others I know) will often be the first the berate those advocating “easy-believeism.” If you can get them to admit it comes down to an experience-based soteriology that would be a huge victory.Ask your friend how she knows she has “real faith” as required under OSAS. She may refer to her feelings or other internal experiences as the proof. Point out the issue with that.
So here is the protestant response to this one.[20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
I think they might be right on this one. Prophecies of scripture is a subset of scripture. Since the time of Peter’s writing (60s) was when the OT was generally considered canonical, and there really were not many NT scriptures for him to talk about prophecies of. Apocalypse, for example, wasn’t written until much later.Actually, 2 Peter 1:20 emphasizes the source of Old Testament prophecies, not who has the right to interpret the Bible today. (What does 2 Peter 1:20 mean about interpreting Scripture? | GotQuestions.org)
Relying on grace through faith properly recognizes that we can and do sin, as Paul relates to us, and are therefore called to repentance, confession and receiving absolution.Oh well definitely, mortal sin is something we absolutely can all avoid. I believe many have done such.
Something I recall from the saints: “I would rather die than offend God through my sins.”
We aren’t protestants who believe there’s no way we can avoid sinning and so have to rely on faith alone and what not. It’s not at all impossible.
So did St Paul.Luther … thought it impossible to not sin,
No. They believe it is distinct from Justification, but inseparable. “There is no justification without sanctification .”-Lutherthey tend to believe sanctification is a separate process from justification,
Amen to all of this.It is possible through God’s Grace.
It is a change of heart and of mind, not mere following the Law.
For if I had the faith to move mountains, what good would it do if we are without love?
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us ".No, they thought it to be deceptive to say they had not sin, for they did Venial sin.
They never said it was impossible to not mortally sin.
John tells us to pray for each other about the sins that do not kill.
St Paul makes clear that one should endure in righteousness, and if so, then he is saved.
I don’t know when Luther said such, his theology was evolving as he grew, but if he says so then good. They are treated like the same process in the Bible and throghout most Christian history.