Damned at noon, saved at 1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter claymcdermott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

claymcdermott

Guest
I have been concerned lately about soteriology. Particularly, the way that discrete and particular acts can radically switch your soteriological status.

Let’s say that someone has a habit of (pick one): masturbation/ or smoking marijuana (although we’ll assume her not to be addicted in a clinical sense)/ or shoplifting/ or gambling.

Now, at least one of the above is definitely a grave matter. Let’s say that after committing the act, immediately after, the person repents. And within an hour or two, or a day or two, or a week, she commits the sin again. She immediately repents again. And falls again.

Within the space of a month she has switched from being saved to damned to saved to damned…it seems a little ridiculous. Now, do we assume that the repentance was not genuine? Do we not quickly come to a place of “once saved always saved” where if you fall, “then clearly your conversion did not count.”

Do we say, “Oh, well, habit mitigates whether the sin is mortal.” Does it though? Simple habit?

I am no fan of fundamental option theory, but I am troubled.
 
claymcdermott said:
I have been concerned lately about soteriology. Particularly, the way that discrete and particular acts can radically switch your soteriological status.

Let’s say that someone has a habit of (pick one): masturbation/ or smoking marijuana (although we’ll assume her not to be addicted in a clinical sense)/ or shoplifting/ or gambling.

Now, at least one of the above is definitely a grave matter. Let’s say that after committing the act, immediately after, the person repents. And within an hour or two, or a day or two, or a week, she commits the sin again. She immediately repents again. And falls again.

Within the space of a month she has switched from being saved to damned to saved to damned…it seems a little ridiculous. Now, do we assume that the repentance was not genuine? Do we not quickly come to a place of “once saved always saved” where if you fall, “then clearly your conversion did not count.”

Do we say, “Oh, well, habit mitigates whether the sin is mortal.” Does it though? Simple habit?

I am no fan of fundamental option theory, but I am troubled.
Click to expand...
If you’re personally troubled, I’d say that you shouldn’t be. God knows your heart. What do you think Jesus died for you to accomplish? He’s watching your back, so to say. You do your best, He’ll do the rest.

I agree with you. It could get rediculous. If you’re sincere in wanting to stop stealing, eventually you’ll stop. God will give you the strength to. You have to love Jesus, who died for you on a cross, more than you love stealing.

If you are truly sorry, you will always be forgiven. If we could be perfect, Jesus would not have had to die for us.

Fran
 
Addictions of any kind do mitigate the seriousness of such sins. Addictions are not merely sin problems, they are often physical and/or psychological problems, as well. Those addicted need to see a health professional instead of thinking they are “damned” for having such a problem. God isn’t like that. He isn’t waiting like a spider in a web to “getcha.” He knows our human weaknesses and problems. A good confessor will advise treatment for chronic problems instead of shaming a penitent who comes to him with them. The real battle is against despair in such circumstances–or throwing blame on God or the Church if we struggle with them, which is like blaming the doctor for breaking a leg or contracting a disease. By all means we should pray and resolve not to sin, but we need not fear that God is wanting to damn us at every turn–he wants to heal us, in all the ways that lie open to us. Damning people for their weaknesses is simply not who he is or how he operates. 🙂
 
Galatians 5:17
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

Romans 8:5
Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

Galatians 6:8
7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.…

Romans 8:6
The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.

Romans 6:21
What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death!

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…

Do not run to heresies like Once Saved Always Saved. Predestination is real, but not in that sense. We can go from a state of mortal sin to a state of grace thanks to God’s Mercy - not because we can commit mortal sins and go to Heaven.

Rejoice in God’s Mercy. That a person who falls can be brought back into a state of grace.

And God does give us sufficient grace not to commit mortal sin. You could literally never commit another mortal sin in your life. Especially if you persevere in prayer during temptation.

God is Love. He is Holy and Pure and He Loves us infinitely. He wants us to be Holy and Pure. The Lord our God Loves His people and puts a distinction between His people and the world.

God loves you. Don’t leave Him. He will never leave you. Keep fighting and keep praying. Don’t run to heresy.

“Fundamentalists” (heretics) do not know the fundamentals. I don’t know why we call them fundamentalists. They are not fundamentalists. They deny the fundamentals. They are heretics. But the label stuck for some reason. For some reason people don’t get upset if you call them a “fundie” but if you call them what they really are - heretics - people start accusing you of being uncharitable (and in reality you are being charitable). Mock them and it is OK with people. Humbly acknowledge the truth, and it is not OK with people.

Here is a fundamental:

John 20:23
And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

I love you literally. God loves you literally.
 
Della said:
Addictions of any kind do mitigate the seriousness of such sins. Addictions are not merely sin problems, they are often physical and/or psychological problems, as well. Those addicted need to see a health professional instead of thinking they are “damned” for having such a problem. God isn’t like that. He isn’t waiting like a spider in a web to “getcha.” He knows our human weaknesses and problems. A good confessor will advise treatment for chronic problems instead of shaming a penitent who comes to him with them. The real battle is against despair in such circumstances–or throwing blame on God or the Church if we struggle with them, which is like blaming the doctor for breaking a leg or contracting a disease. By all means we should pray and resolve not to sin, but we need not fear that God is wanting to damn us at every turn–he wants to heal us, in all the ways that lie open to us. Damning people for their weaknesses is simply not who he is or how he operates. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree very much with the despair part of your post. One should never despair but trust in the love of God.

A priest I know says we’re all very fragile creatures. If God loves us, He also will not condemn us if we are sorry and if we love Him.

I like to say that it’s always the heart condition that He sees.

Sometimes we need help. I forgot to mention that.

Fran
 
Della said:
Addictions of any kind do mitigate the seriousness of such sins.
Click to expand...
IMO, for what that’s worth, an addiction CAN mitigate culpability — but it would be a bit over the top to claim that they always do. After all, people can have a certain responsibility for developing an addiction in the first place. There’s also the question of what they’re actively doing in order to overcome said addiction. An addiction can be a massive, self-imposed weakness that a person tries very lightly to overcome, almost never relying on God’s grace in the process. Such a person is not innocent, objectively speaking. In fact, they may have lost all hope that God can save them, and that is surely not a good sign of a soul in sanctifying grace.

Now, OP, you say you have concerns. A few observations:

You say such a person as you describe HAS objectively gone back and forth between being in a state of grace to having fallen out of it. That’s an assumption on your part. A proper alternative explanation is that they were consistently in a state of mortal sin. You consider this possibility, but then say that this logically leads to “once saved always saved.” I don’t think it does — it just acknowledges that it is POSSIBLE that someone who easily gives in to sin lacks the proper purpose of amendment, and that therefore their Confessions could possibly have been invalid. Now, I don’t say that they were absolutely invalid. But, once upon a time if not today, a confessor who noticed someone committing a consistent mortal sin would probably make an effort to analyze their purpose of amendment, so as to determine if they are in a state to receive absolution in the first place.

You say, also, that it is ridiculous that someone who is in a state of mortal sin could be given the graces of repentance and ultimately be restored to a state of grace … only to fall again shortly thereafter, and then be restored, and then to fall, and so on and so forth.

Well, why is it ridiculous that God should be generous with His graces? God wills all men to be saved, and every one, at least at some point in his life, receives sufficient grace to be saved.

But furthermore, even if someone DID go through such a cycle — what makes you think they will do so indefinitely? Perhaps they will stop sinning. Moreover, perhaps God will one day stop giving them the graces to repent. That’s a chilling thought, but it’s a possibility. A person who constantly abuses God’s grace, in justice, may one day find that they don’t have any graces left … and then, all that can be done for them is for a soul in a state of grace to intercede for them.

So yes, I fail to see what is troubling or concerning about this situation, aside from the horror of sin and its effects.

To recap:

(A) We don’t know whether this person is objectively in a state of grace or not: perhaps their contrition was defective, and thus never led to absolution.

(B) Situation (A) in no way logically implies “once saved always saved,” it is an extremely reasonable possibility.

(C) Someone existing in a cycle of sin-repentance does not imply they will always exist in that cycle. They could stop sinning, or else God could simply stop giving them the graces they need to repent.
 
AttendeDomine, I think your answer on firm purpose of amendment is very good.

I think the cycle itself still seems odd, depending on how rapid it is, and I have my doubts on how often the cycle ever describes what happens with a person, just because, soteriologic status should seem to describe who a person is at a deep level if we are to avoid forensic soteriology, and it just doesn’t seem to me that human identity rapidly toggles so hard between radically opposed statuses.

Anyway, lacking firm purpose of amendment, and therefore, never actually absolved in the first place, probably is something that describes most people who are not diminished in freedom necessary to reduce the culpabilty of the sin to the point where it ceases to be mortal, but still seem to be going through the cycle.
 
claymcdermott said:
AttendeDomine, I think your answer on firm purpose of amendment is very good.

I think the cycle itself still seems odd, depending on how rapid it is, and I have my doubts on how often the cycle ever describes what happens with a person, just because, soteriologic status should seem to describe who a person is at a deep level if we are to avoid forensic soteriology, and it just doesn’t seem to me that human identity rapidly toggles so hard between radically opposed statuses.

**Anyway, lacking firm purpose of amendment, and therefore, never actually absolved in the first place, **probably is something that describes most people who are not diminished in freedom necessary to reduce the culpabilty of the sin to the point where it ceases to be mortal, but still seem to be going through the cycle.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by the above?

Are you saying that there’s a certain AMOUNT of purpose that one must have in order to be absolved?

Fran
 
claymcdermott said:
…
Click to expand...
Baltimore Catechism No. 3 give insight:

The Kind of Sorrow****Q. 755. What kind of sorrow should we have for our sins?
A. The sorrow we should have for our sins should be
  • interior,
  • supernatural,
  • universal, and
  • sovereign.

    Q. 756. What do you mean by saying that our sorrow should be interior?
    A. When I say that our sorrow should be interior, I mean that it should come from the heart, and not merely from the lips.

    Q. 757. What do you mean by saying that our sorrow should be supernatural?
    A. When I say that our sorrow should be supernatural, I mean that it should be prompted by the grace of God, and excited by motives which spring from faith, and not by merely natural motives.

    Q. 758. What do we mean by “motives that spring from faith” and by “merely natural motives” with regard to sorrow for sin?
    A. By sorrow for sin from “motives that spring from faith,” we mean sorrow for reasons that God has made known to us, such as the loss of heaven, the fear of hell or purgatory, or the dread of afflictions that come from God in punishment for sin. By “merely natural motives” we mean sorrow for reasons made known to us by our own experience or by the experience of others, such as loss of character, goods or health. A motive is whatever moves our will to do or avoid anything.

    Q. 759. What do you mean by saying that our sorrow should be universal?
    A. When I say that our sorrow should be universal, I mean that we should be sorry for all our mortal sins without exception.

    Q. 760. Why cannot some of our mortal sins be forgiven while the rest remain on our souls?
    A. It is impossible for any of our mortal sins to be forgiven unless they are all forgiven, because as light and darkness cannot be together in the same place, so sanctifying grace and mortal sin cannot dwell together. If there be grace in the soul, there can be no mortal sin, and if there be mortal sin, there can be no grace, for one mortal sin expels all grace.

    Q. 761. What do you mean when you say that our sorrow should be sovereign?
    A. When I say that our sorrow should be sovereign, I mean that we should grieve more for having offended God than for any other evil that can befall us.
…

Firm Purpose of Sinning No More
Q. 770. What do you mean by a firm purpose of sinning no more?
A. By a firm purpose of sinning no more I mean a fixed resolve not only to avoid all mortal sin, but also its near occasions.

Q. 771. What do you mean by the near occasions of sin?
A. By the near occasions of sin I mean all the persons, places and things that may easily lead us into sin.

Q. 772. Why are we bound to avoid occasions of sin?
A. We are bound to avoid occasions of sin because Our Lord has said: “He who loves the danger will perish in it”; and as we are bound to avoid the loss of our souls, so we are bound to avoid the danger of their loss. The occasion is the cause of sin, and you cannot take away the evil without removing its cause.

Q. 773. Is a person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, rightly disposed for confession?
A. A person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, is not rightly disposed for confession, and he will not be absolved if he makes known to the priest the true state of his conscience.

Q. 774. How many kinds of occasions of sin are there?
A. There are four kinds of occasions of sin:

    • Near occasions, through which we always fall;
    • Remote occasions, through which we sometimes fall;
    • Voluntary occasions or those we can avoid; and
    • Involuntary occasions or those we cannot avoid. A person who lives in a near and voluntary occasion of sin need not expect forgiveness while he continues in that state.

      Q. 775. What persons, places and things are usually occasions of sin?
      A.

      1. The persons who are occasions of sin are all those in whose company we sin, whether they be bad of themselves or bad only while in our company, in which case we also become occasions of sin for them;
      2. The places are usually liquor saloons, low theaters, indecent dances, entertainments, amusements, exhibitions, and all immoral resorts of any kind, whether we sin in them or not;
      3. The things are all bad books, indecent pictures, songs, jokes and the like, even when they are tolerated by public opinion and found in public places.
      audiosancto.org/inc/BC3/bc3-18.html

      ​
 
Hi Vico,

Thanks for posting.

I’m interested in knowing what the poster means for a reason.

We sometimes get too caught up in legalities and this is bothering me.

We don’t need a CERTAIN AMOUNT of determination in order to be forgiven.
We just need to be determined. God made up some simple rules, and then we went and made them difficult.

If a person is sorry that he sinned, he will be forgiven. It doesn’t matter if he knows all the rules. God only needs to know that he’s sorry and that some determination is made not to sin anymore. Jesus told the adultress, Go and sin no more. So that is a necessary factor.

But the AMOUNT of that determination will change from person to person. We’re not all the same. Plus, not everyone has read all the regulations. God looks at the heart.

This is what I was getting at and wondering what the poster meant. I’m hoping that he didn’t mean that if we don’t have the PROPER AMOUNT of determination, we will not be forgiven.

Fran
 
frangiuliano115 said:
Hi Vico,

Thanks for posting.

I’m interested in knowing what the poster means for a reason.

We sometimes get too caught up in legalities and this is bothering me.

We don’t need a CERTAIN AMOUNT of determination in order to be forgiven.
We just need to be determined. God made up some simple rules, and then we went and made them difficult.

If a person is sorry that he sinned, he will be forgiven. It doesn’t matter if he knows all the rules. God only needs to know that he’s sorry and that some determination is made not to sin anymore. Jesus told the adultress, Go and sin no more. So that is a necessary factor.

But the AMOUNT of that determination will change from person to person. We’re not all the same. Plus, not everyone has read all the regulations. God looks at the heart.

This is what I was getting at and wondering what the poster meant. I’m hoping that he didn’t mean that if we don’t have the PROPER AMOUNT of determination, we will not be forgiven.

Fran
Click to expand...
He asks about salvation status. We know from the scriptures that each must convert and repent for forgiveness: Acts 3, 19-26; 5, 31; 10, 43; 13, 38; cf. 17, 30; 26, 20; Lk 1, 77; 3, 8; 5, 32; 13, 3.

No matter how many failures, each time forgiveness and absolution is obtained in sincere confession of sins where there is sorrow for sins committed, a resolution or firm purpose of amendment, and satisfaction or sacramental penance.
 
One does not “damn oneself” at 2…though for while there is human life - there is the possibility of repentance and returning to life…

What you not though is possible that a person is going back and forth often in a day. Yes.

But if that is happening…that would be rather unusual and there can be thus possibility that the persons freedom is impeded…and the culpability may be reduced where for that person is not culpable of mortal sin due to diminishment of the voluntary character of the act. A confessor can advise…

But Yes a single mortal sin changes the reality of the persons state…they have chosen death and will be in that state until they are restored by Christ to true life (via perfect contrition prior to confession and/or confession).

(remember that mortal sin is not something happens by accident…and is no light matter…there is grave matter (such as lust), full knowledge and then complete (deliberate) consent…now can there be that which reduces ones culpability where one has not committed a mortal sin - has not given that deliberate consent? Sure there can be. Ones confessor can assist in judging such…though if such is the case for a particular person … that of course is no license to sin…)

One is either in light or darkness.

Either living or dead.

Either in true life or in spiritual death.

Thanks be to God for the life we are offered in Christ and the mercy of his giving us that grace to live again…especially in the great Sacrament of Confession where the blood of Christ washes us and we are restored to that true life.
 
catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/On%20Contrition%20and%20the%20Purpose%20of%20Amendment.html

heraldsgospelsinengland.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-is-firm-purpose-of-amendment-is-it.html

These authors make a rather good case for the idea that a firm purpose of amendment is a big deal, and the number one reason that Confessions are invalid. And this is what we’re getting at.

Anyway, I think that this convo is slightly unproductive. I am only putting up these last two articles because I think they’re pretty good, especially the first, and you might like them.
 
claymcdermott said:
These authors make a rather good case for the idea that a firm purpose of amendment is a big deal, and the number one reason that Confessions are invalid. And this is what we’re getting at.

Anyway, I think that this convo is slightly unproductive. I am only putting up these last two articles because I think they’re pretty good, especially the first, and you might like them.
Click to expand...
yes if the person does not have have the purpose of amendment(ie they plan to commit the mortal sin again…they do not reject it but are open to doing again later …etc in terms of committing mortal sin) then yes the confession would be invalid.
 
Bookcat said:
yes if the person does not have have the purpose of amendment(ie they plan to commit the mortal sin again…they do not reject it but are open to doing again later …etc in terms of committing mortal sin) then yes the confession would be invalid.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, but of course addiction can be overwhelming even if the penitent wishes not to commit sin again. This is why we don’t depend on our own ideas or feelings about what kinds of sins we’ve committed and our culpability, we go to our confessor for guidance in such matters. Anyone struggling with committing the same mortal sins again and again needs a regular confessor–to go to him regularly and to do what he prescribes without fail.
 
Della said:
Yes indeed, but of course addiction can be overwhelming even if the penitent wishes not to commit sin again. This is why we don’t depend on our own ideas or feelings about what kinds of sins we’ve committed and our culpability, we go to our confessor for guidance in such matters. Anyone struggling with committing the same mortal sins again and again needs a regular confessor–to go to him regularly and to do what he prescribes without fail.
Click to expand...
See my post above.

As to judging …yes a regular confessor can be helpful.

Though I would not that one CAN depend on ones own ideas about what ones sins one has committed in general -that is why one examines ones conscience and accuses oneself of said sins. I know what you mean there I think as you will see in my post above…but I note this for readers.
 
Della said:
Yes indeed, but of course addiction can be overwhelming even if the penitent wishes not to commit sin again. This is why we don’t depend on our own ideas or feelings about what kinds of sins we’ve committed and our culpability, we go to our confessor for guidance in such matters. Anyone struggling with committing the same mortal sins again and again needs a regular confessor–to go to him regularly and to do what he prescribes without fail.
Click to expand...
Edit

See my longer post up above.

As to judging …yes a regular confessor can be helpful.

Though I would note that one CAN depend on ones own ideas about what ones sins one has committed in general -that is why one examines ones conscience and accuses oneself of said sins. I am meaning that one judges that one did sin.

As to if there was mitigation of culpability due to possible lack of freedom - a confessor yes ought to assist.

I know what you mean there I think as you will see in my post above…but I note this for readers.
 
Bookcat said:
Edit

See my longer post up above.

As to judging …yes a regular confessor can be helpful.

Though I would note that one CAN depend on ones own ideas about what ones sins one has committed in general -that is why one examines ones conscience and accuses oneself of said sins. I am meaning that one judges that one did sin.

As to if there was mitigation of culpability due to possible lack of freedom - a confessor yes ought to assist.

I know what you mean there I think as you will see in my post above…but I note this for readers.
Click to expand...
Well, I stated that we are not to depend on our own feelings/ideas–in the sense that we depend on them alone, not that we can’t use good confession guides or know what sins we’ve committed. But when we are in doubt or confused, our best recourse is to our regular confessor. 🙂
 
Della said:
Well, I stated that we are not to depend on our own feelings/ideas–in the sense that we depend on them alone, not that we can’t use good confession guides or know what sins we’ve committed. But when we are in doubt or confused, our best recourse is to our regular confessor. 🙂
Click to expand...
Or one just examines ones conscience…

That is the normal course.

Now when one has doubt or is confused or other out of the ordinary situation - yes a regular confessor is key.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top