Refute this please?

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

CeaselessMedik

Guest
gotquestions.org/mortal-sin-venial.html

Real short post, but I was just hoping someone could tell me why these peoples’ reasoning is wrong. I know 1 John addresses the concept of mortal sin, or at least the Catholic Church interprets it that way, but I’m not even sure all of the Bible was written under/through revelation. Could someone defend that too, please?
 
This is connected to the Protestant “saved by faith alone” argument. (See the thread with that title.) The writer of the article is wrong to say that repentance and good works are not necessary for salvation,and that believers will not be judged. This contradicts Matthew 25,34-46. and Luke 24,47. While it is true that “Christ died for sins once for all” we do indeed separate ourselves from God’s love when we sin,when we do not repent,and when we do not do deeds of mercy.
 
Well that passage does make sense about good works and stuff, but what about the other stuff? Like when we sin, why do we need to do penance, like he talked about? Why isn’t being sorry enough?
 
CeaselessMedik said:
Well that passage does make sense about good works and stuff, but what about the other stuff? Like when we sin, why do we need to do penance, like he talked about? Why isn’t being sorry enough?
Click to expand...
In the OT when Jonah cried, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” What did the people do? “They proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.”
The Gospel of Mark chapter 2 at 19-20 “And Jesus said to them, ‘Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.’” This is repeated again in the Gospel of Luke at 5:34-35.

The following link will give you “The Fathers Know Best” article regarding penance.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9512frs.asp
 
Well the former is from the OT, before Jesus died for all our sins, and the second doesn’t seem to reference sin in any way…how do we know that’s why they’re fasting? And where do all the other forms of penance come from?

The rest of the stuff seems to similarly not mention sin as the reason for fasting, and others aren’t even from the Bible.
 
Luke 24,46-47:

…“Thus it is written,that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day,and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations,beginning in Jerusalem.”

2 Corinthians 7,1:

Since we have these promises,beloved,let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit,making holiness perfect in the fear of God.

Acts 2,38

Peter said to them,“Repent and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven;and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
 
But this is assuming “repentance” is the same thing as “doing penance.” As far as I know, it’s not.
 
“Repentance” is the translation lie that Protestants choose to believe because they won’t accept that the Bible does say “Do Penance”!
 
And how do you know what it was originally written to mean? There aren’t any first editions of the Bible, not to mention translating it from Greek to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, etc.
 
“Does the Bible teach that a person who is truly saved by God through Christ can lose his salvation and regain it? It clearly does not teach this.”

Didn’t Paul say to work out your salvation with fear and trembling? It makes sense to me, I don’t see how someone can believe and skip the lot of those statements. If I’m saved once and for all, why would I fear anything? I wouldn’t even make an effort to fulfill the first half of the statement! Why would I work out my salvation if I’d already been salvaged? Well, I certainly wouldn’t do it while trembling with fear that it may not be attained!
 
That makes sense to me, but it still doesn’t address the issue of whether or not mortal sin is any different from venial sin, or whether penance is necessary as told to us through revelation.
 
CeaselessMedik said:
But this is assuming “repentance” is the same thing as “doing penance.” As far as I know, it’s not.
Click to expand...
“Doing penance” is a more formulaic way of repenting,to ensure the observance of repentance,and as a help to meditation and purification. Whether or not we want to follow the formulaic way that the Catholic Church prescribes,we should always repent in our hearts and in prayer. Protestants, doing without the Church’s formalities and sacrifices,incline to the misguided belief that they do not need to repent because they are already forgiven of all their sins,and that they will not be judged. Though we are forgiven by God,we still need to repent,because we will still be judged.
 
I’m not sure what you mean about “observance of repentance” - God knows whether we’ve repented or not, so we’d basically be persuading ourselves, but the rest makes sense.
 
Why isn’t feeling sorry enough? you ask…

Well how is it you “know” that you are “sorry enough”? Does just feeling sorry on the inside make a person repentent? Does feeling sorry equate to 'asking God for forgiveness? If so how?

And feeling sorry internally acknowledges that our sins are sins aainst God, what about the public nature of our sins. When we sin, even if others are unaware of our deeds [the adulterer whose spouse in unknowing] does not mean that there is no harm don to others and to our community [in the vaarious ways that community is defined]…

That is why Jesus provided and founded a Church. It is also why He granted a power to “bind and loose” to the leaders of the Church he founded. So that we could hear His forgiveness, get direction for making reparations and receive grace to help us turn away from sin. St Paul says that we are to stay vigilent, working our our salvation, lest we run the race but loose our lives.

Scripure speaks of the refiners fire where our works are judged, we all have impurities [that are bured away] leaving precious metal behind [won for us by the saving power Jesus who atoned for our sins]. But the passage also speaks of the ash of those whose life held nothing but the impurities. When it is burned there is nothing…

As for all of Scripture being inspired…well that is an article if faith. The Church tells us that the scriptures are the Word of God. Jesus is the Word Made Flesh…in truth it would seem that you should take it [all] or leave it [all]. It either is inspired or not…for if only parts of it are inspired…how would you tell? Who would decide, “this is” … “this isn’t” …we were there once in the past…but alas that is another thread [and a thread that has been done and redone!]
 
CeaselessMedik said:
That makes sense to me, but it still doesn’t address the issue of whether or not mortal sin is any different from venial sin, or whether penance is necessary as told to us through revelation.
Click to expand...
John 5,17:

“All wrongdoing is sin,but there is sin that is not mortal.”

Penance is necessary,but the formulaic manner of penance is a matter of tradition. Not even the Pope would suggest that the formulaic manner of penance is necessary for salvation.
 
Well of course we should make reparations to others we have hurt. Otherwise we wouldn’t really be sorry then, right? But what does saying ten Our Fathers have to do with replacing a stolen bike, or something?
 
anthony022071 said:
John 5,17:

“All wrongdoing is sin,but there is sin that is not mortal.”

Penance is necessary,but the formulaic manner of penance is a matter of tradition. Not even the Pope would suggest that the formulaic manner of penance is necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...
Well that’s one translation…the one I found for what I think you were referring to was “All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.” I’m not sure what the second part means - “unto” is being used in a way I’m not familiar with - but it does seem to be there in black and white, assuming 1 John was inspired.
 
It is not always possible to make a direct ‘reparation’ to the one who we have sinned against. Often times our remorse and contrition come far after the event, in your example of stealing a bike. Perhaps you were not sorry until long after the event or because it was stolen not even knowing who to make ammends to.

An adulterous spouse might inflict greater harm to their sife/husband by declaring thier affair in order to seek personal forgiveness [andyet destroy the family]… sin makes a mess in the world…but just “feeling” sorry is not enough…

Humans need the penetential rite…I read an article [secular] on guilt, human nature, the problems [personal, interpersonal, societal, etc] that compound our society in REDBOOK magazine back in the 1970’s * The amazing thing about the artical was the praise this psychologist had for the catholic Church and the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. This person actually stated that in studies and thier experience in counseling, serious catholics who went to confession often had happier, healthier lives and relationships. I wish I had kept the article…*
 
Well, sure they do. They believe that the only way their 'mortal" sins will be forgiven is through that Sacrament. If there is no such thing as mortal sin and the Sacrament is not required then they’d probably feel as good by being truly sorry and trying to make amends that wouldn’t make things worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top