Mortal sins

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

It achieved its purpose. I am very pleased.
I am going to post Sola Scripture but other threads needed a more immediate response.

What was the purpose?
What was achieved?

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

I have no idea what you mean. The Bible teaches that all things are possible through Christ. This I am sure we agree on…never mind. I am asking not arguing. I am not going to debate Joe. Nice try.

I’m not looking for a debate, and I, too am only asking.
How does one know that his faith is sufficient for salvation?

 

[Fredricks]

Joe Gloor:

What was the purpose?
What was achieved?

Thats a fair question. I was going to go Sola Scripture v tradition but the main question that was being PM’d me was about tradition.
Those who responded to me were satisfied.
It died because of someone not answering the third part. Go back and look. I asked a question twice. It died.
Now did it satisfy you guys? No, I am not here to convert Catholics, I am here to present the other side to wavering Protestants and that is going very well I believe. I have spent more time answering private PM’s than posting, which is fine.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

No, I am not here to convert Catholics, I am here to present the other side to wavering Protestants and that is going very well I believe. I have spent more time answering private PM’s than posting, which is fine.

I appreciate that. I certainly wouldn’t want someone to convert to Catholicism and then be talked out of it later.
My feeling regarding the FOUNDATIONS thread was that there were a lot of questions being asked, but not a lot of answers were forthcoming.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fredricks:

I am not here to convert Catholics, I am here to present the other side to wavering Protestants and that is going very well I believe.

Wavering Protestants that think that OSAS is taught in scriptures need to be lovingly corrected and taught the truth. Nowhere does scripture teach OSAS (see the scripture verses in post # 16.)

You are doing no one a favor by spreading the pernicious heresy of OSAS.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

It is helpful.
Are venial sins open to personal interpretation then?

I’m not entirely sure of what you mean by “personal interpretation” here.

There are objective moral evils such as: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, socery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissention, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like (Gal. 5:19-21). If we sin by committing any of these examples, with full knowledge and full consent, we are in mortal sin. No “personal interpretation” is needed. God has made it very clear.

And although it may seem to some as though there is “wiggle room” in the case of venial sin, this is not the case. If you sin against God and you freely choose it with the knowledge of that evil, your “personal interpretation” is irrelavent. The subject matter of venial sin may not be as grave as that of mortal sin, but one’s “personal interpretation” of a particular sin is not in question. Sin is that which separates us from God, by our own free will–not by our free interpretation. If we know we are doing something wrong and choose to do it, our “interpretation” of the circumstances surrounding that sin does not change the sinfulness of that action (thought or word).

Ulimately, we depend on the mercy of God. None of us are worthy of our salvation. And, yet, God, in His Infinite Wisdom, has given us the freedom of will, the reponsibility to form a good conscience, and all the grace and virtue we need to seek His will. As individuals, weak and broken, we do not depend on our “personal interpretation” of His will and, likewise, we do not depend on our “personal interpretation” of sin (venial or mortal). He knows our hearts better than we do!

And thanks for remindings us. . .

Does Protestantism have such a list?

We only use the Bible.

Is there a definition of how much Faith is required for Salvation in the Protestant churches?

The Bible contains all we need

We were still waiting for your defense of your "only the Bible, “the Bible is all we need” tradition. Unless, of course, you are conceeding by your dodges that you are merely opposing Sacred Tradition with your own personal tradition–which is basically all we can surmise at this point.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

It achieved its purpose. I am very pleased.
I am going to post Sola Scripture but other threads needed a more immediate response.

So, your purpose was. . .?

We all just assumed that your purpose was to prove your position! Guess we were wrong.

You really could do with being a bit more forthright.

 

[Fredricks]

Joe Gloor:

I appreciate that. I certainly wouldn’t want someone to convert to Catholicism and then be talked out of it later.
My feeling regarding the FOUNDATIONS thread was that there were a lot of questions being asked, but not a lot of answers were forthcoming.

If it were one on one, I could answer everything.
tell you what, go over to internet infidels, tell them you believe in God, and just try to keep up. You will see what I mean.

 

[Fredricks]

JaneFrances:

So, your purpose was. . .?

We all just assumed that your purpose was to prove your position! Guess we were wrong.

You really could do with being a bit more forthright.

We are pleased that we proved to OUR audience that Sacred Tradition is reliable only if you accept Catholic authority, since we,and our audience do not, we felt pleased. The PM’s were positive to say the least. I tried to be forthright Jane. I recall posting my intentions as such.

 

[petra]

Fredricks:

Is the line between venial and grave interpretative?

There objectively is a line between sins that weaken our spirit and sins that constitute turning our back on God. But discerning where that line exists isn’t always obvious. If driving 5 mph over the speed limit is venial and if driving 100 mph on a curvy mountain road with your kids in the backseat is a grave matter, where is the line? 10 mph over the speed limit, 15 mph?

What I have learned as a recent convert to Catholicism (4 years ago) after 22 years of my adult life in Evangelical Protestantism, is discernment is a combination of being properly informed and of listening to the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean that we can exercise our self-will to decide where the line is, but God lets me know if I’m getting close to the edge. I can feel it.

We certainly don’t want to live on the edge and should try to avoid venial sin, too. All sin hurts God, and if we love Him, knowing that we are sinning should greive our heart.

What I understand about Catholic theology also suggests that what may be a “line” for one person may not be the “line” for another. When we are younger in our faith (due to the mitigating conditions of lack of full knowledge and lack of full consent), a specific action may not rise to the level of grave matter. But for a mature believer it may.

If this seems too ambiguous to you, it may help to understand that the Catholic faith is organic and relational, whereas the Protestant paradigm is much more legalistic in the sense that lines are drawn and boxes created. Even after converting, it has taken several years for the paradigm shift to occur.

I used to be a OSAS Calvinist. I would have looked at Catholics in pity that they did not have a compiled list of specific sins that could put their souls in jeopardy. But I now realize that such a list would not be particularly useful because it is impossible to judge that someone has actually turned their back on God. Instead, the Church lovingly provides information that informs our conscience and sacraments that can remedy our spiritual condition if we think we have crossed the line. In my opinion, it really draws us closer to God and makes us more sensitive to the Spirit.

petra

 

[Fredricks]

JaneFrances:

I’m not entirely sure of what you mean by “personal interpretation” here.

There are objective moral evils such as: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, socery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissention, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like (Gal. 5:19-21). If we sin by committing any of these examples, with full knowledge and full consent, we are in mortal sin. No “personal interpretation” is needed. God has made it very clear.

And although it may seem to some as though there is “wiggle room” in the case of venial sin, this is not the case. If you sin against God and you freely choose it with the knowledge of that evil, your “personal interpretation” is irrelavent. The subject matter of venial sin may not be as grave as that of mortal sin, but one’s “personal interpretation” of a particular sin is not in question. Sin is that which separates us from God, by our own free will–not by our free interpretation. If we know we are doing something wrong and choose to do it, our “interpretation” of the circumstances surrounding that sin does not change the sinfulness of that action (thought or word).

Ulimately, we depend on the mercy of God. None of us are worthy of our salvation. And, yet, God, in His Infinite Wisdom, has given us the freedom of will, the reponsibility to form a good conscience, and all the grace and virtue we need to seek His will. As individuals, weak and broken, we do not depend on our “personal interpretation” of His will and, likewise, we do not depend on our “personal interpretation” of sin (venial or mortal). He knows our hearts better than we do!

And thanks for remindings us. . .

We were still waiting for your defense of your "only the Bible, “the Bible is all we need” tradition. Unless, of course, you are conceeding by your dodges that you are merely opposing Sacred Tradition with your own personal tradition–which is basically all we can surmise at this point.

We are familiar with all the verses to support Sola Scripture and so is our audience now, if they were not before, for some we sent links, for others just all the verses quoted.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

It died because of someone not answering the third part. Go back and look. I asked a question twice. It died.

Actually, we thought it died because you failed to answer your first and second parts!

My first point was
Scripture is from the primary sources.

Right, we were wating for you to provide the named primary source for Hebrews, specifically.

2nd point.
The early church had differing view on this issue. Contrary to what the Catholic laity assumes to be the case, there were widely divergent views.

Not sure how this second point applies as several “Catholic laity” posters have fully acknowleged this point. Your onus was to prove that the differing views of some in the early Church somehow disproves the validity of Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. This you haven’t done either.

3rd point.
This is what we are on.
Jane
Has the definition of what is Sacred Tradition changed?

Again, since the first two points have yet to be made. . .we were waiting for you! It was your ball.

4th will be the Bible

Which one?

No, I am not here to convert Catholics, I am here to present the other side to wavering Protestants and that is going very well I believe. I have spent more time answering private PM’s than posting, which is fine

.

Your Christian charity is overwhelming, Fred! Just so that you know. . .you may not care about converting Catholics, but we are always concerned about converting you! And it’s not so that we can win a debate for a target audience. It’s because we actually love you!

 

[Fredricks]

What I have learned as a recent convert to Catholicism (4 years ago) after 22 years of my adult life in Evangelical Protestantism, is discernment is a combination of being properly informed and of listening to the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean that we can exercise our self-will to decide where the line is, but God lets me know if I’m getting close to the edge.** I can feel it**.

We certainly don’t want to live on the edge and should try to avoid venial sin, too. All sin hurts God, and if we love Him, knowing that we are sinning should greive our heart.

What I understand about Catholic theology also suggests that what may be a “line” for one person may not be the “line” for another. When we are younger in our faith (due to the mitigating conditions of lack of full knowledge and lack of full consent), a specific action may not rise to the level of grave matter. But for a mature believer it may.

Thank you for answering Petra. Sounds interpretive to me but I do appreciate your answer in ascertaining your mindset on this issue.

 

[montanaman]

Fredricks, this “we’re all happy with the debate” nonsense is pathetically lame. Since you’ve barely provided a defense of anything, your audience must be fantastically easy to please. Or, as I think, there is no audience. It’s just a novel new online apologetics tactic.

“We’re all watching how wrong you are.” Please.

 

[Fredricks]

montanaman:

Fredricks, this “we’re all happy with the debate” nonsense is pathetically lame. Since you’ve barely provided a defense of anything, your audience must be fantastically easy to please. Or, as I think, there is no audience. It’s just a novel new online apologetics tactic.

“We’re all watching how wrong you are.” Please.

Hello Montanaman
I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[montanaman]

montanaman:

Fredricks, this “we’re all happy with the debate” nonsense is pathetically lame. Since you’ve barely provided a defense of anything, your audience must be fantastically easy to please. Or, as I think, there is no audience. It’s just a novel new online apologetics tactic.

“We’re all watching how wrong you are.” Please.

Actually, if there IS an audience, GREAT! Now they’ve been exposed to actual Catholic doctrine.

Good idea you have there–it’d be like me taking a bunch of lukewarm and poorly catechized Catholics over to CARM for an instruction on online apologetics. Of course, it’s much harder to get banned here…

I encourage this audience to go over to CARM and see how fast they shut down pleasant, easy-going Catholics who are just trying to counter the blatant lies about the Church. (And yes, they do lie.)

 

[petra]

Fredricks:

Thank you for answering Petra. Sounds interpretive to me but I do appreciate your answer in ascertaining your mindset on this issue.

Yes, it is “interpretive” from a discernment standpoint. But from God’s standpoint, it is objective. We do not determine where the line is from an act of our self-will. We seek to discern what objectively is.

I guess the word “interpretive” bothers me a little because it rings of moral relativity, which I (and certainly the Catholic Church) rejects.

 

[Eden]

Where are these “we”? It’s dubious to me. Why would they PM you instead of publicly joining the discussion?

In any event, I would invite all of your friends to research mortal sin. As always, the CA library is a good start:

catholic.com/library/mortal_sin.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010frs.asp

I would encourage all Protestants to post on this thread openly. I would also encourage Fredericks to reveal what his denomination is. What is there to hide?

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

If it were one on one, I could answer everything.
tell you what, go over to internet infidels, tell them you believe in God, and just try to keep up. You will see what I mean.

I feel for you. I’ve seen other places that I wouldn’t post in with a 10 foot key-board. It’s good to keep in mind that the person who wins the argument isn’t always right.
It’s always frustrating for one person to try to answer all the questions posted by the many. And frustrating for each of the ‘many’ to not have their questions answered.
But that’s life on the boards.