Welcome to Christianity Haven, thank you for visiting! If you have not already, we invite you to create an account and join in on the many discussions we have!
I don't think saved through fire is for such sins, although, what about that man who lived with his father's wife? But he repented while he lived.Gets confusing when 2 threads are branching into the same topic.
This is then a reply to both.
In response to the reference "a sin unto death" in 1John 5.
he speaks of error ..if we see a person acting in an erronious manner. As paul did with peter in the case that peter did not eat with gentiles .paul even names it as "sin" .. Does it threaten peters salvation..? No it is a sin..an error that needed correction ..and paul gave that correction in no uncertain terms..and more importantly.peter ACCEPTED the admonishment by paul and corrected his ways.
Had peter not done so he would have progressed into rebellion against the holy spirit.so of course he repented of his present error. Such is a sin,a missing of the mark ,that does not lead to death.for there is no direct unambiguous command that "thou shalt eat with gentiles" that he was transgressing against.
But if he was traveling in the gospel work and sleeping with some strange woman ..that would be a direct transgression of what he knows to be right.it would be a sin unto death if he does not immediatly repent of it and cease .if he were to die in an unrepentant state,he would perish in his sin. It would be a sin unto death in that it is a direct rebellous violation against the known will of God.not an erronious behavior.
Just as lying is .and stealing and refusing to forgive.and porn which is adultory..and masterbation..which is the outward action purposly fed by the sinful desire to please the insatiable evil desires of the flesh by the sin of uncovering the nakedness of one whom you have no right to uncover.
It also,unrepented of,is a sin unto death.
No part of the text has anything what so ever to do with the old rcc pugatory .and swapping the definitions now is just an admission that the doctrine has always been false.
Wow talk about being decievedI don't think saved through fire is for such sins, although, what about that man who lived with his father's wife? But he repented while he lived.
He said don't pray for those who do sin unto death. People who are addicted to porn etc., you should pray for them. But if Peter or Paul would have fallen back into such sin I don't think they could come back, like Demas maybe. Nowadays most people can just come back because they're a baby christian. (that's what I think, otherwise the texts make no sense, that those can't come back and crucify Him twice, that you shouldn't pray for those who do sin unto death, then why could I come back and so many more christians who had backslid? I think that's more about pharisees and false teachers who live in sin. There's one preacher who marries her third husband now and they preach that watching porn together makes your life more exciting. I sure hope for them that there is hope, but I'm afraid not)
Just two. Mortal and venial. These are both mentioned in saint John's first letter. I doubt that you'll correct your statements but they are in error. I guess it is all that "self" stuff you keep posting about. You magnify your doctrine above holy scripture and then accuse Catholics of having "lots of distinctions in sins". Just one more example of how far from the truth are your comments about Catholicism.Catholics LOVE to make LOTS of distinctions in sins...
Just two. Mortal and venial. These are both mentioned in saint John's first letter.
Josiah said:What is the Law?
The Law is the will of God - flowing from His absolute perfection and justice. It is, in essence, that we be as He is - not in terms of essence but character.
Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful at birth"
Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."
Romans 5:12, "Sin entered the world through one man's sin, and death through sin, and therefore death came to all men for all have sinned."
First John 3:4, "Sin is lawlessness"
Romans 3:12, "There is no one who does good, not even one."
Mark 10:18, "There is none who is good but God exclusively."
First John 1:10, "If we claim we have no sin, we make God a liar and His word is not in us."
What does the Law mandate?
Essentially, that our character be identical to His.
Matthew 5:48, "You must be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."
1 Peter 1:16, "You must be holy even as God in heaven is holy."
John 15:12, "Love all people just as I (Jesus) first loved you."
Ephesians 4:32, "forgiving one another, just as God in Christ first forgave you."
First John 2:6, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."
Philippians 2:5, "You must have the same attitude that Christ did."
The word literally means "to miss the mark." In ancient Greece, if an archer missed the target, the therefore "sinned" because he missed the mark, missed the target. The Bible says "ALL fall short." IF you have absolutely, perfectly, divinely, 24/7 "hit" all the targets above, then you are obedient and free of sin. Otherwise...... Well, the Bible would be correct and not lying when it says that "NO ONE is righteous, no, not even one." "For ALL fall short." "NO ONE is good." "If you claim to have no sin (you hit the mark), then you lie and call God a liar."
exactlyBottom line is that even grumbling can cause you to lose your salvation....
![]()
and not even Moses entered into the promised land... until the angel fought over his body to take him to the heavenly promised land.exactly
Just two. Mortal and venial. These are both mentioned in saint John's first letter. I doubt that you'll correct your statements but they are in error. I guess it is all that "self" stuff you keep posting about. You magnify your doctrine above holy scripture and then accuse Catholics of having "lots of distinctions in sins". Just one more example of how far from the truth are your comments about Catholicism.
Obviously not.
...
and not even Moses entered into the promised land... until the angel fought over his body to take him to the heavenly promised land.
Yes and what kept him from entering was it not disobedience
Yup so what makes people think it has changeddisobedience founded in unbelief
they did not 'obtain " the promise because of unbelief, unbelief causes us to disobey . not believing is ,in itself ,disobedient .
disobedience founded in unbelief; they did not 'obtain " the promise because of unbelief, unbelief causes us to disobey . not believing is ,in itself ,disobedient .
Yup so what makes people think it has changed
In other words sin is sin
In other words sin is sin the only difference being repentance