The forgiveness nullified? YOu must be mistaken, this is the exact condemnation I felt in the n-C Church I must run up to the altar all the time and it was always after their communion? After the entire service was over! He was saying to her to follow Him and His teachings! Dessert
So your objection is with people having pride in themselves because they somehow merited, by their own goodness, salvation?
So there is no free will of the person involved. You are one of those predestination persons? God saves who He wants, and the rest are damned?
I believe this is a thinking error.
He is talking about works of the Law. The following of Levitical Law.
If she is forgiven of the sin of adultery, then goes out right away and does it again, she then brings the same condemnation on herself. I would not say it makes the previous forgiveness null, but she ends up again in a worse state, because she did not follow His directions to “sin no more”. the point is that we must cooperate with the HS to build on the forgiveness that we have rec’d by grace.
No, I am not mistaken at all; Jesus is clear: sin no more. If she does sin again, then isn’t it logical then that His forgiveness is then disregarded? This is the same logic why we confess our sins–if we commit them and they are confessed, then we commit them again, does the priest tell us that we need not to confess since we’ve confessed it before anyway? Of course not–we have to confess those sins, especially if they’re mortal sins. The same is true with the woman accused of adultery–if she commits that sin again, then naturally Jesus’ forgiveness is the nullified, since she committed that sin again.
Evidently we have not clarified it for you. The misrepresentation you put forth is the heresy of Feeneyism. I have already posted the link for you twice on another thread.
Jesus’ forgiveness is not nullified! This is what it is: the sacrament of reconciliation is NOT for future sins. You can not ask forgiveness of a sin which you are about to commit.
Where did I say it’s for future sins? I didn’t even imply that’s so. However, I did state that if one would commit the same sin, then one has to naturally go to confession about it. As for forgiveness not being nullified, the exact word escapes me right now, so I just use nullify since it’s the closest thing I can think of. But whatever it might be, one thing is sure: once someone commits the same sin again, then that person needs to confess his sins. Come to think of then, doesn’t that exactly mean that the forgiveness given before is nullified since one did the same sin all over?
This would only be true if sins #1 are not the same as sins #4 IMO. However, it might not be the same case if sin 1 is the same as sin 4. Hhmm…maybe we should ask an apologist about this then?
Yes, I think that might be true, if the sin committed before is held as a separate occasion to the same sin committed later. That might then be true, and hence the forgiveness given then would also be a separate one from the one given for the same sin done later.
I do not think this is accurate, since in essence you are confessing the same sin, hence you are reconfessing it. However, like I said, the occasions in which they occur are different. One can further reflect that the circumstances that led to commit the same sin might be different, and so it is not exactly the same sin, meaning that the sin committed might be the same, but that circumstances and events are different. But we’re getting into philosophy here.
I meant reconfessing a certain instance of sin. I didn’t mean reconfessing a sin of the same nature. Once an instance of sin is forgiven, there is no need to reconfess it. If you sin again in the same manner, then you need to confess the new instance of sin.I do not think this is accurate, since in essence you are confessing the same sin, hence you are reconfessing it. However, like I said, the occasions in which they occur are different. One can further reflect that the circumstances that led to commit the same sin might be different, and so it is not exactly the same sin, meaning that the sin committed might be the same, but that circumstances and events are different. But we’re getting into philosophy here.
I think this is more on semantics, since confessing the same sin is, in essence, reconfessing the sin. However, like I said, circumstances and the like would not be the same; hence, the sin isn’t entirely the same, but different in the manner by which it was done.
Yes, but that is if the sinner repents and does not sin again. The validity of the Sacrament becomes void if the sinner commits the same sin–since he is breaking something which he vowed not to do, and for which he sought forgiveness from.
No, it certainly isn’t void per se, but it would be void for the same sin you did. If it isn’t, then there would be no need to confess the sin again, since you were forgiven of it already (shades of OSAS). But that is not the case–if you committed the same sin, then you would have to confess that sin again.