Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[BRB1]

All sin is serious there is no sin that is “not so”. All sin will keep us from the presence of God through Christ, unless it is repented of.

Let’s take a look at 1Jn 5:16-17 again. 16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Now he says there is a sin that is unto death and we are not even to pray for the brother that commits this sin. Right? Ok, let me ask you. Does the CC teach that you should not pray for brothers that commit mortal sin? I certainly hope not. So, this sin probably is not the sin that the CC would call mortal. Ok, what is it then. It is my contention that this sin is the unpardonable sin. The unpardonable sin is any sin for which no pardon is asked and if no pardon is asked none will be given. .

Let me help RK here. RK … is saying there are only two kinds of sin. Forgiven Sin … and Unforgiven Sin. That sin is sin … there are no gradations of severity. That any sin confessed becomes Type 1 sin [forgiven] and any unconfessed sin falls into Type 2 unconfessessed - unforgiven].

However, it is clear THIS IS NOT what John is talking about in the verses [5:16-17] I gave you. I’m not saying that your claim doesn’t have some validity … I’m saying you can’t use John’s verses to make your case.

Find us other verses from SS to support your claims if you like … but, you still need to explain logically what John is saying here.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Let me help RK here. RK … is saying there are only two kinds of sin. Forgiven Sin … and Unforgiven Sin. That sin is sin … there are no gradations of severity. That any sin confessed becomes Type 1 sin [forgiven] and any unconfessed sin falls into Type 2 unconfessessed - unforgiven].

However, it is clear THIS IS NOT what John is talking about in the verses [5:16-17] I gave you. I’m not saying that your claim doesn’t have some validity … I’m saying you can’t use John’s verses to make your case.

Find us other verses from SS to support your claims if you like … but, you still need to explain logically what John is saying here.

Talk about contradicting yourself. You say that my claims have validity, but it’s clear that THIS IS NOT what John is talking about. Then you say that I can’t use Jn5:16-17 to explain Jn 5:16-17 Too much for me brother. By the way. How is it clear that Jn is not talking about exactly what I said he is talking about?

God bless

 

[Sellers1]

Firstly, you rightly admitted there is “sin that leads to death” - that is what we call “mortal sin”.
Secondly, you rightly admitted there is sin “that does not lead to death” - that is what we call “venial sin”.
But now you wrongly refuse to “concede” because “it’s not what the Scripture says”.
That is somewhat confusing.

placido

What you said is confusing. I merely said that this passage speaks of sin that leads to death and sin that doesn’t lead to death, not mortal sin and venial sin as they are defined by your Catechism. Do you see my objection now?

 

[Sellers1]

Talk about contradicting yourself. You say that my claims have validity, but it’s clear that THIS IS NOT what John is talking about. Then you say that I can’t use Jn5:16-17 to explain Jn 5:16-17 Too much for me brother. By the way. How is it clear that Jn is not talking about exactly what I said he is talking about?

God bless

Confusion is the tactic.

 

[BRB1]

Let’s take a look at 1Jn 5:16-17 again. 16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. …

RK … your interpretation is wrongo

If John was saying what you suggest … there would be no sin we could ask [pray to ] Christ to forgive him [another Christian] of, since defacto 'all sins result in DEATH [if not confessed by the sinner].

Again … your idea is not w/o merit … but, you can’t claim John is making your case for you with these two verses. Go elsewhere in SS and find for us the support for your claims

 

[PRmerger]

See, that’s just it. All sin is serious there is no sin that is “not so”. All sin will keep us from the presence of God through Christ, unless it is repented of.

Yes, you are correct, Richard. I should not have given the impression that any sin is acceptable or that any sin is not serious.

However, you must acknowledge that there are more serious sins and less serious sins (caveat: sins are *all *serious!!).

 

[placido]

What you said is confusing. I merely said that this passage speaks of sin that leads to death and sin that doesn’t lead to death, not mortal sin and venial sin as they are defined by your Catechism. Do you see my objection now?

“Leading to death” means mortal; “not leading to death” means venial - your objection is thefore not needed.

placido

 

[placido]

I’m not denying there are two types of sin, just that they are mortal and venial. .

You are not denying two DIFFERENT types of sin. You are just denying two DIFFERENT names for the two DIFFERENT types of sin. Yet you accuse me of being confused?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Now, even Catholics beleive that mortal sin if repented of does not lead to death. So what is the only thing left. Well, it’s the sin that is not repented of, Right? .

I’ve included the part of my post that you refer to here. Now I know that English is not your first language, but how do you get from this post that I am denying that there are two types of sin? .

No, you are not denying two DIFFERENT types of sin. You are just denying two DIFFERENT names for the two DIFFERENT types of sin.

Ok, placido I see there is nothing I say that you are going to embrace. So I have to leave you to your confused Catholic veiw. There is no one so blind as him who will not see.

Apparently, I am confused and blind because I am Catholic. Richard can never be confused and blind because he is Protestant. Seriously though, you can say I am confused and blind and I can say you are confused and blind. Those are our personal views, but then, what nakes your views right and my views wrong and who decides?

placido

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Yes, you are correct, Richard. I should not have given the impression that any sin is acceptable or that any sin is not serious.

However, you must acknowledge that there are more serious sins and less serious sins (caveat: sins are *all *serious!!).

Jn. 19:11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Let’s look at this v. Who was it that delivered Jesus to Pilate? It was Caiaphas and the Sanhedren right? Where did they get there power from? It was God right. Ok, where did Pilate get his power from? It was Rome right? So, what Jesus is saying here is that betraying the Son of God into the hands of sinners under the appearance that they were doing God’s will is a more heinous sin than Crucifying him under the auspice of Rome. Let me ask you this then. Were either one of these sins if unrepented of, a sin that does not lead to death? The answer obviously is no. Ok, so were in scripture does this venial sin you talk about exist. The answer quite simply is that it doesn’t exist.

1John 3:4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. There are no classifications of sin in this v. The definition of sin is a transgession of the law. All sin that transgresses the law, if left unrepentant, leads to death.

 

[PRmerger]

Jn. 19:11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Let’s look at this v. Who was it that delivered Jesus to Pilate? It was Caiaphas and the Sanhedren right? Where did they get there power from? It was God right. Ok, where did Pilate get his power from? It was Rome right? So, what Jesus is saying here is that betraying the Son of God into the hands of sinners under the appearance that they were doing God’s will is a more heinous sin than Crucifying him under the auspice of Rome. Let me ask you this then. Were either one of these sins if unrepented of, a sin that does not lead to death? The answer obviously is no. Ok, so were in scripture does this venial sin you talk about exist. The answer quite simply is that it doesn’t exist.

1John 3:4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. There are no classifications of sin in this v. The definition of sin is a transgession of the law. All sin that transgresses the law, if left unrepentant, leads to death.

Richard, what you are saying is quite compatible with Catholic doctrine, as I have been saying all along. There are sins which are of a more “heinous” nature (to use your terminology). Catholicism does not claim that Pilate’s sin is a “venial” sin and Caiphas’ is “mortal.” Only that Jesus notes there are distinctions between types of sins.

See Luke 12:46-47 to see another example of Jesus noting that not all “sin is sin”. Why does St. Luke report a different punishment for these servants?

And, really, Richard, do you truly not see a moral and spiritual distinction between a 10 year old who lies to his parents that he didn’t break the window and a 40 year old who sells pot to this 10 year old? Really?

All we Catholics are doing is calling it mortal and venial. You can call it whatever you like, but you ought to be theologically honest and acknowledge that it’s the same doctrine as Catholicism.

 

[placido]

Richard, what you are saying is quite compatible with Catholic doctrine, as I have been saying all along. There are sins which are of a more “heinous” nature (to use your terminology). Catholicism does not claim that Pilate’s sin is a “venial” sin and Caiphas’ is “mortal.” Only that Jesus notes there are distinctions between types of sins.

See Luke 12:46-47 to see another example of Jesus noting that not all “sin is sin”. Why does St. Luke report a different punishment for these servants?

And, really, Richard, do you truly not see a moral and spiritual distinction between a 10 year old who lies to his parents that he didn’t break the window and a 40 year old who sells pot to this 10 year old? Really?

All we Catholics are doing is calling it mortal and venial. You can call it whatever you like, but you ought to be theologically honest and acknowledge that it’s the same doctrine as Catholicism.

Well said.
Richard acknowldges two types of sin, but apparently “mortal” and “venial” sounds too Catholic for him, so I propose he calls them “Type 1 & Type 2” or “Type A & Type B” - just for him to sound a little bit different and feel comfortable.

placido

 

[Bill_Pick]

Jn. 19:11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Let’s look at this v. Who was it that delivered Jesus to Pilate? It was Caiaphas and the Sanhedren right? Where did they get there power from? It was God right. Ok, where did Pilate get his power from? It was Rome right? So, what Jesus is saying here is that betraying the Son of God into the hands of sinners under the appearance that they were doing God’s will is a more heinous sin than Crucifying him under the auspice of Rome. Let me ask you this then. Were either one of these sins if unrepented of, a sin that does not lead to death? The answer obviously is no. Ok, so were in scripture does this venial sin you talk about exist. The answer quite simply is that it doesn’t exist.

1John 3:4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. There are no classifications of sin in this v. The definition of sin is a transgession of the law. All sin that transgresses the law, if left unrepentant, leads to death.

Our Lord said to Pilate (John 19:11): ‘He that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin,’ and yet it is evident that Pilate was guilty of some sin. Therefore one sin is greater than another.

 

[SHW]

Our Lord said to Pilate (John 19:11): ‘He that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin,’ and yet it is evident that Pilate was guilty of some sin. Therefore one sin is greater than another.

Peter also betrayed Jesus, but he repented of his sin and even became the Rock on whom Jesus built His Church. Such is the mercy of our God!

What a difference between Judas and Peter!

 

[heiscominginthe]

Thanks. As I suspected, context is everything. Paul is saying that only Christ is able to mediate strictly speaking between man and God; but Mary is a mediatrix of grace insofar as she is 1) the mother of God, from whom all grace flows, and 2) she is the most perfect intercessor, because she was saved from original sin and is yet still fully human. Again, she is not God and thus hasn’t authority in herself to mediate grace, but through her grace is mediated.

For notes on Mary as the mediatrix see especially Redemptoris Mater JPII

This is a tradition of the Church, but it is not yet dogma; although a petition has been sent to the Holy Father for this reason.

Now, where does it say Mary was saved original sin? Did Mary not die? If she did not have sin, she would not have died.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I do not know what you are talking about the post is about Jesus Christ and what Paul had to say,how did we get Mary in here, do you have a question about Mary==if so just ask some one will help you and asndwer your question

 

[hawkeye]

If the Apolstles had known so much they would have asked Jesus at the wedding feast at Cana,

His Mother spoke, not the Apostles, His mother presented the problem to Her Son, Jesus Honoured His Mother, is it any different now they’re in Heaven ?

 

[BRB1]

Did Mary not die? If she did not have sin, she would not have died.

Not the case.

Scripture teaches all must die … even as Christ [who was w/o person sin] did.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Jesus did not have any apostolic at cana or did I jump into some thing,if I did I,m sorry

 

[Bill_Pick]

Not the case.

Scripture teaches all must die … even as Christ [who was w/o person sin] did.

people who belong to the body of Christ DO NOT DIE BUT LIVE IN HEAVEN FOR ALL TIME

 

[BRB1]

people who belong to the body of Christ DO NOT DIE BUT LIVE IN HEAVEN FOR ALL TIME

UH …

Yes & no. Physical death for all … yes, excepting those alive when Christ returns. Spiritual death for all … no.