On sin:

[bradwill911]

In discussions here and with other non-Catholic people, the understanding of sin is something that comes up eventually. In talking to a sola fide, OSAS non-C, it is my understanding that they believe:

1. We all sin, even when we’ve been saved
2. No sin is greater than another sin (sin is sin)
3. When we’re saved, it’s all forgiven, even our future sins
4. We don’t even need to ask forgiveness for our sins, we should, but we don’t need to
5. This goes for every sin: murder, rape, etc.
6. Only exception is a sin against the Holy Spirit, which is unbelief

Please let me know if I am misunderstanding or misrepresenting something here as it would be unintentional.

This conversation immediately leads me to ask about serious sins such as murder and I’m told time and again that while it is unlikely that a saved person would commit murder, it would be automatically forgiven if the person is saved. I then ask why the saved person, then, wouldn’t commit suicide because it would seem that sin would be pre-forgiven and you would get a direct trip to Heaven. I have been told that while this is true, it would not be a good idea.

So, that leads me to 1 John 3:15, “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him.”

This verse would suggest a few things. First, if you didn’t love your neighbor as yourself (hate your brother), you are equivalent to a murderer. Second, those guilty of murder are not saved. Third, OSAS apparently doesn’t apply here. My understanding of “remaining” means that something continues to stay where it is. In this case, it seems as though eternal life was once there, but now isn’t. So, if a sin is just a sin, and murder is not a sin against the Holy Spirit, how is murder an exception to your belief in the doctrine that all sins are forgiven for a saved person. Question two, is my understanding of “remain” misguided?

What about 1 John 5:16-17:

“If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrong doing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.”

Is this referring only to sin against the Holy Spirit (disbelief)? That would seem unlikely given the passage in the same letter about murder.

There are many other passages that support a difference in types of sin, but this should be sufficient to get the conversation rolling.

Peace.

 

[VociMike]

Note also that many Protestants will claim of somebody who commits “grave” sins (murder, rape, etc), especially someone who commits these sins repetitively, that they were never saved to begin with. But they will never say this about somebody who commits “tiny” sins.

Why not, I wonder?

 

[bradwill911]

Note also that many Protestants will claim of somebody who commits “grave” sins (murder, rape, etc), especially someone who commits these sins repetitively, that they were never saved to begin with. But they will never say this about somebody who commits “tiny” sins.

Why not, I wonder?

Exactly on point. If all sin is created equal and we are all sinners, then we are all just as culpable for murder as we are for a white lie (do these jeans make me look fat? No honey, or course not). The penalty for each sin would be the same since all sin is created equal. Why would one be “never saved to begin with” after committing murder anymore than one would be “never saved to begin with” after telling a lie like this unless murder is, in fact, not equal to the white lie in severity? But that can’t be right if all sin is created equal.

Sorry for the rambling on, I do that sometimes.

God bless,
Brad

 

[NHInsider]

Bradwill-

I think your summary is accurate, and I’m afraid the answer to your other questions is that OSAS is just really an unsustainable argument. Most of the OSAS Protestants I know ultimately just claim that the possibility of “losing” ones salvation is incompatible with God’s sovereignty. (I do hate that expression, “losing,” as if you could accidentally misplace it!

It is a really appealing doctrine, I must say. I’d love to believe that my loved ones, especially my kids, were irrevocably saved from eternal damnation because of a profession of faith made at age 5. But I can’t support that from either Scripture or Tradition.

I spent twenty years as an evangelical and never once heard any preacher or teacher address Paul’s “lest I be cast away” in 1 Cor. 9:26-27. I’m quite certain we read it, but I do not recall anyone every having addressed it. I do remember lots of arguments to the effect that someone who was a Christian who committed serious sin must’ve not been REALLY saved to begin with, which then generated lots of consternation and fear over whether or not I had “done it” (asking Jesus to be my savior) right.

Ironically, which is less “secure,” a doctrine that teaches you can, deliberately and with full knowledge, reject God, or a doctrine that teaches that even though you thought you’d accepted the gift of salvation, maybe you didn’t, quite?

further note - I just went digging via Google and determined that at least some OSAS folks “cover” this by presuming that there are multiple Judgments and that those who’ve been saved may be terribly humiliated at their Judgment and lose all their “rewards” but not their salvation. (Makes eternity sound like a bad video game.)