Is it possible for a protestant to avoid mortal sin for their entire life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul_Fekete
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then what is the difference between Heaven and Hell? If people are still committing sin in Heaven, then what is the point of going there, or why would it be better to go to Heaven than to go to Hell? :confused:
jmcrae, please notice it’s all written in the past tence, the atonement is a finished work not a potential work.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Rom 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
 
I’m noticing many is this forum flapping their lips with zero scriptural evidence, just another opinion of billions of other baseless opinions which are usless without evidence from our Canon of 66 books.
This is a perfectly logical position for you to take since you list your religion not as Christian but as Biblicist.

Of course since we are Christians - and recognize that Scripture points us, not to its self, but to The Church, we do not find any problem.

On the other hand you have a considerable problem in tying yourself to an incomplete bible and then improperly understanding that.

And just to demonstrate that I base the above on Scripture, I offer this.
You have presented a position. Others have responded, you have rejected their replies etc…In short there is a conflict over who is holding and expressing the correct teaching. The one who is wrong is sinning by preaching a false gospel.
So - What does Scripture tell us to do with such disagreements? It tells us to “tell it to the Church” (See Mt 18:15-18). We can see this very thing play out in Acts 15. A disagreement that not even St Paul could resolve was taken to a Church council for resolution. One side was found to be correct and the other side not…but everyone submitted to the authority of the Church in council.
And I might point out that the council in Acts determined to set aside a large portion of Scripture as it was known at that time…that being the Mosaic Law.

So let me summarize things like this. I will happily concede that you are right and that I am wrong - as soon as “The Church” tells me so, for I am bound by Christ’s own words to “listen to The Church” (Mt 18:17).

I don’t say this to be argumentative…but these kinds of discussions always come down to a “he said, she said” log jam and the only way to resolve the matter biblically is by listening to the Church.

Peace
James
 
This is a perfectly logical position for you to take since you list your religion not as Christian but as Biblicist.

Of course since we are Christians - and recognize that Scripture points us, not to its self, but to The Church, we do not find any problem.

On the other hand you have a considerable problem in tying yourself to an incomplete bible and then improperly understanding that.

And just to demonstrate that I base the above on Scripture, I offer this.
You have presented a position. Others have responded, you have rejected their replies etc…In short there is a conflict over who is holding and expressing the correct teaching. The one who is wrong is sinning by preaching a false gospel.
So - What does Scripture tell us to do with such disagreements? It tells us to “tell it to the Church” (See Mt 18:15-18). We can see this very thing play out in Acts 15. A disagreement that not even St Paul could resolve was taken to a Church council for resolution. One side was found to be correct and the other side not…but everyone submitted to the authority of the Church in council.
And I might point out that the council in Acts determined to set aside a large portion of Scripture as it was known at that time…that being the Mosaic Law.

So let me summarize things like this. I will happily concede that you are right and that I am wrong - as soon as “The Church” tells me so, for I am bound by Christ’s own words to “listen to The Church” (Mt 18:17).

I don’t say this to be argumentative…but these kinds of discussions always come down to a “he said, she said” log jam and the only way to resolve the matter biblically is by listening to the Church.

Peace
James
👍👍
 
I’m noticing many is this forum flapping their lips with zero scriptural evidence, just another opinion of billions of other baseless opinions which are usless without evidence from our Canon of 66 books.

Scripture tells me the following.

.2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
By word of truth, you understand this refers to the Old Testament. How do you know the New Testament Canon is both complete, accurate, and Authoritative?
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
How do you define vain babbling? I think most people here would say you are babbling. Is it majority rules or what?
Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
What a great verse for you to present. I think you forgot to read the last part. You see it clearly says there is a faith that was once delivered unto the Saints. A faith that was taught and practiced. A faith that was lived. Traditions that were taught to the people. As it says in 2 Thes 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught , whether by word, or our epistle” And yet you reject what is not written in the Epistles. You reject the traditions the Apostles Taught. How can you say you are a Biblicist when you do not follow the Bible. I could give you no doubt Dozens of Scripture passages that you do not follow. Biblicist?? Please. You follow manmade traditions. I was there too at one point. The sooner you realize the sooner you can experience Christ.
]
Tit_1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
How do you base what contradicts? You are the one who rejects what is taught. A simple look at history will show that your beliefs did not appear until at the most 500 years ago and probably in reality more like 200 years ago. You reject Christianity as it was for 1500 years, and you expect us to believe you…Why?
 
Considering Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:10, is it possible for a protestant to avoid commiting a mortal sin with full knowledge and consent for their entire life? This thread establishes that protestants can not claim to be ignorant of moral law since it is written on their hearts. If protestants have knowledge of moral law, then is it possible that they can avoid commiting a mortal sin for their entire life? Will they not covet, disobey their parents, etc. at some point in their life?
Sure. For instance, if a child baptized Lutheran dies before the age of reason, or lapses into a coma and doesn’t recover, etc.
 
This is a perfectly logical position for you to take since you list your religion not as Christian but as Biblicist.

Of course since we are Christians - and recognize that Scripture points us, not to its self, but to The Church, we do not find any problem.

On the other hand you have a considerable problem in tying yourself to an incomplete bible and then improperly understanding that.

And just to demonstrate that I base the above on Scripture, I offer this.
You have presented a position. Others have responded, you have rejected their replies etc…In short there is a conflict over who is holding and expressing the correct teaching. The one who is wrong is sinning by preaching a false gospel.
So - What does Scripture tell us to do with such disagreements? It tells us to “tell it to the Church” (See Mt 18:15-18). We can see this very thing play out in Acts 15. A disagreement that not even St Paul could resolve was taken to a Church council for resolution. One side was found to be correct and the other side not…but everyone submitted to the authority of the Church in council.
And I might point out that the council in Acts determined to set aside a large portion of Scripture as it was known at that time…that being the Mosaic Law.

So let me summarize things like this. I will happily concede that you are right and that I am wrong - as soon as “The Church” tells me so, for I am bound by Christ’s own words to “listen to The Church” (Mt 18:17).

I don’t say this to be argumentative…but these kinds of discussions always come down to a “he said, she said” log jam and the only way to resolve the matter biblically is by listening to the Church.

Peace
James
Yeshua has not left His children in confusion, because man is fallable, He has given us the Canon of 66 books as the Christian’s final authority in all that man writes or teaches, wether it be verbal or written.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, **and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith **which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jud 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Jud 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
Jud 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Jud 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jud 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
Jud 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Jud 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
Jud 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
 
Yeshua has not left His children in confusion, because man is fallable, He has given us the Canon of 66 books as the Christian’s final authority in all that man writes or teaches, wether it be verbal or written
Please tell me how “Yeshua…has given us the Canon of 66 books”
 
Yeshua has not left His children in confusion, because man is fallable, He has given us the Canon of 66 books as the Christian’s final authority in all that man writes or teaches, whether it be verbal or written.
  1. Please prove from Scripture that the canon of Scripture is 66 books. Also - as Jon asked, please tell us how Yeshua has left us these books.
  2. Thank you for posting the quote you did which actually supports the need for a visible and authoritative Church to help the faithful contend for the faith against those who would pervert it.
Peace
James
 
Please tell me how “Yeshua…has given us the Canon of 66 books”
Actually, “Yeshua” left us a canon of 46 books of the Old Testament.

The New Testament was given by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD. 😃
 
Thanks everyone for your posts. I think this thread has gotten off topic a bit, so I would like to summarize what I have read from all the posts and reground the conversation. It seems that most agree that:

1.) Protestants can not claim to be ignorant of God’s moral law since it is written on their hearts

2.) While it is theoretically possible that a protestant could go their entire life without breaking God’s moral law with full knowledge and consent, it is highly unlikely. Nobody on this post gave an example of a non-Catholic person who has lived their entire life without committing a mortal sin. For all intensive purposes we can assume that most prostestants will, at some point in their life, break God’s moral law with full knowledge and consent.

With these 2 principles established, I think we may be able to conclude that most protestants are headed to hell unless they join the Catholic church and receive the sacrament of reconciliation. If a protestant openly admits that they have broken God’s moral laws (coveted, disobeyed their parents, lied, gossiped, etc.) with full knowledge and consent, then I think we can conclude that they are headed to hell unless they join the Catholic church and receive the sacrament of reconciliation. In my opinion, to not reach this conclusion is to undermine the need for the sacrament of reconciliation for both Catholics and protestants.
 
Thanks everyone for your posts. I think this thread has gotten off topic a bit, so I would like to summarize what I have read from all the posts and reground the conversation. It seems that most agree that:

1.) Protestants can not claim to be ignorant of God’s moral law since it is written on their hearts

2.) While it is theoretically possible that a protestant could go their entire life without breaking God’s moral law with full knowledge and consent, it is highly unlikely. Nobody on this post gave an example of a non-Catholic person who has lived their entire life without committing a mortal sin. For all intensive purposes we can assume that most prostestants will, at some point in their life, break God’s moral law with full knowledge and consent.

With these 2 principles established, I think we may be able to conclude that most protestants are headed to hell unless they join the Catholic church and receive the sacrament of reconciliation. If a protestant openly admits that they have broken God’s moral laws (coveted, disobeyed their parents, lied, gossiped, etc.) with full knowledge and consent, then I think we can conclude that they are headed to hell unless they join the Catholic church and receive the sacrament of reconciliation. In my opinion, to not reach this conclusion is to undermine the need for the sacrament of reconciliation for both Catholics and protestants.
One thing we did not talk about was perfect acts of contrition which I believe some Protestants may do and that coupled with their lack of knowledge of the need for confession may help some. Unfortunately as a Protestant I did not see this happen.
 
One thing we did not talk about was perfect acts of contrition which I believe some Protestants may do and that coupled with their lack of knowledge of the need for confession may help some.
Your comment that protestants are unaware of the need for the sacrament of reconciliation is an interesting point. I could be wrong, but I am not sure that the Bible clearly states that the only (key word being “ONLY”) way to obtain forgiveness of mortal sins is through the sacrament of reconciliation administered by an apostle/elder (i.e. priest). An argument I have heard from protestants is “even if priests have the power to forgive sins per John 20: 21-23, where does the Bible state that is the ONLY way to receive forgiveness of your mortal sins? Where does the Bible say that confessing your sins directly to God to receive forgiveness is not recognized by God and that you must confess them to an apostle/elder of the church to receive absolution? What if God gave 2 viable options for the forgiveness of mortal sins…one by directly confessing to God and the other by confessing to a priest?”

Since protestants reject the authority of the Catholic church, how can we use the Bible to help them see their urgent need for the sacrament of reconciliation?
 
Your comment that protestants are unaware of the need for the sacrament of reconciliation is an interesting point. I could be wrong, but I am not sure that the Bible clearly states that the only (key word being “ONLY”) way to obtain forgiveness of mortal sins is through the sacrament of reconciliation administered by an apostle/elder (i.e. priest). An argument I have heard from protestants is “even if priests have the power to forgive sins per John 20: 21-23, where does the Bible state that is the ONLY way to receive forgiveness of your mortal sins? Where does the Bible say that confessing your sins directly to God to receive forgiveness is not recognized by God and that you must confess them to an apostle/elder of the church to receive absolution? What if God gave 2 viable options for the forgiveness of mortal sins…one by directly confessing to God and the other by confessing to a priest?”

Since protestants reject the authority of the Catholic church, how can we use the Bible to help them see their urgent need for the sacrament of reconciliation?
Yeah it’s a difficult distinction to make using Sola Scriptura. You definitely can point out John 20 and also James 5. James 5 says “confess your sins one to another”. This is in the context of calling in the elders of the church. So that sounds very sacramental to me. At the very least you can ask why they don’t do this. It says in the Bible to confess your sins to one another so why don’t you? They don’t even confess to their peers usually.

After getting the gears in the head turning, perhaps they will listen to history and the tradition of the church where confession can be seen in the earliest times.
 
Everything is always possible, but not very likely. To avoid a mortal sin is easier then to avoid a venial sin, which is almost impossible. The problem is that some mortal sins are not sins you do but what you think about, like lust, and no matter how hard we try our thought will take us to places we don’t want to. To avoid mortal sin that you do is possible, but…
Involuntary or semi-voluntary thoughts are not mortal sins. Period.

Edwin
 
One thing we did not talk about was perfect acts of contrition which I believe some Protestants may do and that coupled with their lack of knowledge of the need for confession may help some. Unfortunately as a Protestant I did not see this happen.
I think it’s impossible to have what Protestants call “saving faith” (at least in the more rigorous interpretations thereof) without having perfect contrition.

Edwin
 
God doesn’t admit us into Heaven on the curve. He doesn’t poll the world and say, “Oh - nobody’s going to Confession? Let’s take that out of the requirements then, or else no one’s going to make it! Of course, those who do will get extra credit, though.”

It is perfectly true that if most Protestants are in Hell then so are most Catholics.

There is actually no good reason that that might not, in fact, be the case.
Sure there is. God’s tender mercies are over all His works.

Edwin
 
I fully disagree, its heresy!
Then perhaps you can point to the Church teaching that this claim contradicts.

If the poster had said venial sin, you would be on solid ground. But I’m pretty sure that it is possible to live without mortal sin. In fact, by definition I think it has to be–otherwise we would not be fully responsible, and thus incapable of committing mortal sin!

Edwin
 
If you cannot show scriptural evidence for the above statement saying Mary was saved from original sin from birth, then I must conclude you’re statement to be just one of another opioion of billions of opinions, which I trash.
Well…let me ask you…where does the Bible say that everything there is to know about the Christian faith is contained in the Bible?

If you cannot show this…then shall we then consider your belief and opinion on this “trash” also?

And also, I am interested…how did you arrive at the 66 book canon? Can you show through history, can you provide the very first Bible as having 66 books?

If you cannot…shall be then also, consider your belief that the bible should only have 66 books as also “trash”?
 
Your comment that protestants are unaware of the need for the sacrament of reconciliation is an interesting point. I could be wrong, but I am not sure that the Bible clearly states that the only (key word being “ONLY”) way to obtain forgiveness of mortal sins is through the sacrament of reconciliation administered by an apostle/elder (i.e. priest). An argument I have heard from protestants is “even if priests have the power to forgive sins per John 20: 21-23, where does the Bible state that is the ONLY way to receive forgiveness of your mortal sins? Where does the Bible say that confessing your sins directly to God to receive forgiveness is not recognized by God and that you must confess them to an apostle/elder of the church to receive absolution? What if God gave 2 viable options for the forgiveness of mortal sins…one by directly confessing to God and the other by confessing to a priest?”

Since protestants reject the authority of the Catholic church, how can we use the Bible to help them see their urgent need for the sacrament of reconciliation?
Well…I would ask them if when confessing directly to God…they somehow follow or do what Adam and Eve did…in Genesis 3:

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

See how Adam and Eve deflect blame and rationalize their transgression…so ask your protestant friends if they somehow fall into the same trap when they confess directly to God?

And point this out too:

Job 42:

7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job’s prayer.

My questio here would be: Why did God, who spoke directly to Eliphaz, not just forgive him directly? And why did God order him to go through Job?

What was God’s point in telling Eliphaz to go through Job?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top