Sin = Missing the Mark?

[Annie39]

I had a discussion with a family member today regarding sin. He says that sin means missing the mark which means that we are not perfect, no one is perfect and since Jesus died for us once and for all we cannot lose our salvation. I think that is the essence of his argument (we were having a friendly argument). I do know that missing the mark is one meaning of sin in the bible so I am having a problem coming up with a Catholic reply to his assertion. Has anyone dealt with this reasoning before? I would like to know a good reply.
Thanks,
Annie

PS
I searched on this site to see if this had been answered before and couldn’t find it.

 

[guanophore]

I had a discussion with a family member today regarding sin. He says that sin means missing the mark which means that we are not perfect, no one is perfect and since Jesus died for us once and for all we cannot lose our salvation.

Your family member has been contaminated with the heresies of Calvanism.

Yes, scripture uses the Gk. term for sin that means “missing the mark”. It is the same term used in archery for anything but a bullseye. God expects us to keep His commandments, and when we do so, we hit the bullseye. If we miss the mark, we need repentance, confession, reconciliation and renewal. One of the most grievious fruits of the Reformation is the misunderstanding that sin no longer can separate us from God. This is a lie. Nothing unclean can enter heaven, and we must be perfect, as our heavenly father is perfect.

Yes, Jesus died once for all for us, but our salvation is not completed until the end of this life. We enter salvation in baptism, and during this life, we are working out our salvation. One cannot lose what one has not yet attained, so no, we cannot “lose” our salvation because we have not yet arrived to it.

I think that is the essence of his argument (we were having a friendly argument). I do know that missing the mark is one meaning of sin in the bible so I am having a problem coming up with a Catholic reply to his assertion.  Has anyone dealt with this reasoning before? I would like to know a good reply.

Thanks,
Annie

PS
I searched on this site to see if this had been answered before and couldn’t find it.

Yes, this is a common issue here. You can look under read > tracts from the link on the home page.

catholic.com/tracts/grace-what-it-is-and-what-it-does

There are also two recent threads on this issue, one on forensic justification the other on assurance of salvation you can just search the terms.

 

[Annie39]

Your family member has been contaminated with the heresies of Calvanism.

Yes, scripture uses the Gk. term for sin that means “missing the mark”. It is the same term used in archery for anything but a bullseye. God expects us to keep His commandments, and when we do so, we hit the bullseye. If we miss the mark, we need repentance, confession, reconciliation and renewal. One of the most grievious fruits of the Reformation is the misunderstanding that sin no longer can separate us from God. This is a lie. Nothing unclean can enter heaven, and we must be perfect, as our heavenly father is perfect.

Yes, Jesus died once for all for us, but our salvation is not completed until the end of this life. We enter salvation in baptism, and during this life, we are working out our salvation. One cannot lose what one has not yet attained, so no, we cannot “lose” our salvation because we have not yet arrived to it.
ink

Yes, this is a common issue here. You can look under read > tracts from the link on the home page.

catholic.com/tracts/grace-what-it-is-and-what-it-does

There are also two recent threads on this issue, one on forensic justification the other on assurance of salvation you can just search the terms.

Thanks much. I skimmed the url you posted. As far as mortal sin is concerned he believes that only the sin of apostacy (the sin that cannot be forgiven) is the mortal sin. If I share that url with him he will dismiss it as just the way the Catholics think. It seems that he does not believe in objective truth. I say this because he told me that he used to teach a bible study but told his students not to take his interpretation for their own, that they should study the word themselves. I will search for the other topics that you mentioned.

BTW protestents including this family member seem to think that the bible is the Word of God and somehow don’t deal with the fact that Jesus is the word of God. Does anyone know the best way to deal with this situation?

 

[bzkoss236]

I’m assuming he’s on the “sola-scriptura” boat…

This might be some good reading

 

[guanophore]

Thanks much. I skimmed the url you posted. As far as mortal sin is concerned he believes that only the sin of apostacy (the sin that cannot be forgiven) is the mortal sin.

By definition, Protestants reject Sacred Tradition. They are defined by how much, and which parts of the Apostolic faith they deny. The example you cited above is one way they reject part fo what the Apostles believed and taught, in favor of their own ideas.

If I share that url with him he will dismiss it as just the way the Catholics think. It seems that he does not believe in objective truth. I say this because he told me that he used to teach a bible study but told his students not to take his interpretation for their own, that they should study the word themselves. I will search for the other topics that you mentioned.

I don’t think this is so much a rejection of objective truth as it is a misunderstanding of Scripture.

1 John 2:27
27 but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.

They just don’t realize that the HS does not teach one person something opposite of what He has already taught the Church, or that abiding in the Spirit means abiding in the Church founded by Christ. they think everyone can read the Bible and be led into Truth by the HS within them.

BTW protestents including this family member seem to think that the bible is the Word of God and somehow don’t deal with the fact that Jesus is the word of God. Does anyone know the best way to deal with this situation?

The problem you are facing is called Sola Scriptura. It was a doctrine invented during the Reformation to replace the authority that was placed in the Church through the Apostles.

 

[Shin]

I had a discussion with a family member today regarding sin. He says that sin means missing the mark which means that we are not perfect, no one is perfect and since Jesus died for us once and for all we cannot lose our salvation. I think that is the essence of his argument (we were having a friendly argument). I do know that missing the mark is one meaning of sin in the bible so I am having a problem coming up with a Catholic reply to his assertion. Has anyone dealt with this reasoning before? I would like to know a good reply.
Thanks,
Annie

PS
I searched on this site to see if this had been answered before and couldn’t find it.

‘If man or angel always rendered to God his due, he would never sin. . . Therefore to sin is nothing else than not to render to God his due.’

St. Anselm of Canterbury

One can see this has a very very huge application.

 

[fhansen]

I had a discussion with a family member today regarding sin. He says that sin means missing the mark which means that we are not perfect, no one is perfect and since Jesus died for us once and for all we cannot lose our salvation. I think that is the essence of his argument (we were having a friendly argument). I do know that missing the mark is one meaning of sin in the bible so I am having a problem coming up with a Catholic reply to his assertion. Has anyone dealt with this reasoning before? I would like to know a good reply.
Thanks,
Annie

PS
I searched on this site to see if this had been answered before and couldn’t find it.

I bet he means that those who believe in Jesus can’t lose their salvation-I doubt his theology’s as inclusive as your statement sounded. Either way, yes, we all miss the mark; we’re imperfect; we sin. But Jesus came not merely to forgive sin but also to empower us, via the grace of the New Covenant, to ‘go, and sin no more’, to become who God intended us to be, IOW.

 

[Cavaradossi]

BTW protestents including this family member seem to think that the bible is the Word of God and somehow don’t deal with the fact that Jesus is the word of God. Does anyone know the best way to deal with this situation?

There is nothing wong with saying that the Scriptures are the word of God. That has been part of the whole parallelism of the Christian Liturgy since the very beginning. We hear the word of God in the Liturgy of the Catechumens that we might receive the Word of God in the Liturgy of the Faithful.

 

[Holly3278]

I had a discussion with a family member today regarding sin. He says that sin means missing the mark which means that we are not perfect, no one is perfect and since Jesus died for us once and for all we cannot lose our salvation. I think that is the essence of his argument (we were having a friendly argument). I do know that missing the mark is one meaning of sin in the bible so I am having a problem coming up with a Catholic reply to his assertion. Has anyone dealt with this reasoning before? I would like to know a good reply.
Thanks,
Annie

PS
I searched on this site to see if this had been answered before and couldn’t find it.

Your family member is definitely wrong when he says you can’t lose your salvation. You most certainly can lose your salvation and it only takes a single mortal sin to do so. Thankfully salvation can be regained through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[Annie39]

Thanks everyone. However I was specifically interested in the meaning of the word “sin” and how the definition effects the understanding of what sin is and the consequences of same.

Annie

 

[guanophore]

Thanks everyone. However I was specifically interested in the meaning of the word “sin” and how the definition effects the understanding of what sin is and the consequences of same.

Annie

This is a good place to focus, because people who have suffered contamination of the Christian doctrine by Calvanism really have a twisted perception of sin. They accuse Catholics of having a “sin issue”, because they have been taught that ALL sins were paid for by Jesus on the cross (their past, present and future sins). Catholics will agree with this, of course, but we believe that people need to repent of their sins, and be cleansed before the payment becomes effective. This is not taught in Calvanism, though. They are taught to believe that their sins can no longer separate them from God, as if the nature of sin had changed?

They confuse Love with salvation, and since Scripture is clear that nothing can separate us from the love of God, then even their sins will not cause them to be separated from Him.

Many of them have also been taught that there are not degrees of sin, and that they are all the same (missing the mark) whereas the Apostles taught that there are indeed degrees of sin and culpability, greater and lesser.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm

 

[Annie39]

This is a good place to focus, because people who have suffered contamination of the Christian doctrine by Calvanism really have a twisted perception of sin. They accuse Catholics of having a “sin issue”, because they have been taught that ALL sins were paid for by Jesus on the cross (their past, present and future sins). Catholics will agree with this, of course, but we believe that people need to repent of their sins, and be cleansed before the payment becomes effective. This is not taught in Calvanism, though. They are taught to believe that their sins can no longer separate them from God, as if the nature of sin had changed?

They confuse Love with salvation, and since Scripture is clear that nothing can separate us from the love of God, then even their sins will not cause them to be separated from Him.

Many of them have also been taught that there are not degrees of sin, and that they are all the same (missing the mark) whereas the Apostles taught that there are indeed degrees of sin and culpability, greater and lesser.

All this I of course believe but that still does not deal with the definition of the word “sin” in the NT. As an aside, his belief system is more akin to Luther than Calvin. He believes that one can apostatize, Calvin did not Luther did.

 

[fhansen]

All this I of course believe but that still does not deal with the definition of the word “sin” in the NT. As an aside, his belief system is more akin to Luther than Calvin. He believes that one can apostatize, Calvin did not Luther did.

Sin is opposition to God’s very will. Why would anyone think that God would, suddenly, no longer care whether or not His will is done? And God certainly would never give man laws he couldn’t possibly obey, then blame him for disobedience anyway. So the perfection that God created for man definitely is attainable-God will have His way in His universe. The problem is that man cannot be who he was created to be without God, without grace. And this is why the promises of the New Covenant tell us that, by this covenant, God intends to truly become man’s God again, placing His laws on our hearts and writing them in our minds.

The Atonement has the purpose of reconciling man with God as we come to discover His existence and nature: not only His power, but His trustworthiness, His justice, mercy, His, amazingly, humility even, of His unconditional love in the person-the words and actions- of Jesus Christ-so we may come to believe.Then God can begin the work of justification/salvation in us.

 

[Annie39]

Sin is opposition to God’s very will. Why would anyone think that God would, suddenly, no longer care whether or not His will is done? And God certainly would never give man laws he couldn’t possibly obey, then blame him for disobedience anyway. So the perfection that God created for man definitely is attainable-God will have His way in His universe. The problem is that man cannot be who he was created to be without God, without grace. And this is why the promises of the New Covenant tell us that, by this covenant, God intends to truly become man’s God again, placing His laws on our hearts and writing them in our minds.

The Atonement has the purpose of reconciling man with God as we come to discover His existence and nature: not only His power, but His trustworthiness, His justice, mercy, His, amazingly, humility even, of His unconditional love in the person-the words and actions- of Jesus Christ-so we may come to believe.Then God can begin the work of justification/salvation in us.

All this is true and I hope to get to the points that everyone has written sometime but right now I’m looking for the definition of “sin” problem.

Annie

 

[CatherineOH]

…God and somehow don’t deal with the fact that Jesus is the word of God. Does anyone know the best way to deal with this situation?

Have him read John 1-18 every day for a month.

I’ve heard others talk about sin and our actions being like target practice. It was a nun I heard it from who said that we all should try to be saints. To try to be a saint is aiming at the target high, and when we miss it is usually low so perhaps we will be somewhere on the target for heaven if we don’t quite making being a saint.

 

[davidv]

All this is true and I hope to get to the points that everyone has written sometime but right now I’m looking for the definition of “sin” problem.

Annie

This is the Church’s definition of sin

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121
1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125
1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

Is this what you where looking for?

 

[Annie39]

This is the Church’s definition of sinIs this what you where looking for?

Thank you David but no, that is not what I’m looking for. He is uninterested in anything the Catholic Church has to say. I’m looking for the meaning of the Greek word for sin and how it is more than “missing the mark” and perhaps how it fits into the rest of Scriipture. Incidentally, I did have an opportunity to tell him where he got that word of God and why he believes it to be exactly that. I think that that will help if he rolls that around in his mind for a while but I’m not sure. Many a protestant has been brought up to speed on that little topic and it doesn’t seem to make a diffference. Sign. I did for me I am an ex-protestant Lutheran (LCMS) revert.

Annie

 

[guanophore]

All this I of course believe but that still does not deal with the definition of the word “sin” in the NT. As an aside, his belief system is more akin to Luther than Calvin. He believes that one can apostatize, Calvin did not Luther did.

Okay, so I thought you were asking if it was true that sin = missing the mark.

Are you asking how “sin” is defined or described in the NT?

What does it mean “sin problem”?