When the Word just isn’t enough

Out of His Mouth ^ | February 11, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

[paladinan]

The soul that sins, dies.

But the free gift of God, etc... right? St. John already knew what St. Paul had written, when he wrote 1 John 5:16-17 (almost 40 years afterward); St. John knew that the mercy of God allowed for mitigation of certain sins. At any rate, you're arguing against a Scripture, not against me. I didn't write 1 John 5:16-17, you know.

Catholics claim venial and mortal sin.

We do... precisely because St. John did, in 1 John 5:16-17. "Venial" is simply a convenient and shorter nickname for "sin which is not mortal"--i.e. "sin which does not inexorably lead to death in the new dispensation" (which would be tedious to write or to say); we use it out of convenience. If you'd like to use some other word for "sin which is not mortal", you're welcome to do so... though people will get confused. (It'd be a bit like insisting on your own word for "liquid water"... you're free to do so, but people will think you rather odd.)

Show us the terminology in Scripture.

That would be an act of sheer generosity, since I don't accept the silly and false idea of "sola Scriptura", but: I already did so. 1 John 5:16-17.

Show us where the list of non-mortal sins is.

Show me that you've both read and understood my comment, above (in #134), which describes how absurd and irrelevant such a request is.

[paladinan]

By the way: let me repeat the most germane question for you, since you neglected to mention or reply to it:

[metmom]
SCRIPTURE, God's word, is Truth and the standard by which all truth claims can legitimately be measured.

[paladinan]
Now, settle this for me, once and for all. You've just made a claim, and I want to try (at least for the sake of testing your "sola Scriptura" hypothesis) to follow your advice, here: I want to use the 66-book Protestant Bible ALONE as the standard by which your claim is to be measured. Okay?

Now. Please show me where, in Scripture, it says that your claim is true.

You have the power to end this, and all future debates, if you answer this one question decisively. Can you do so?

[paladinan]

That it's NOT of works. Ball is in your court. Explain the contradiction.

Are you honestly suggesting that there's a contradiction in the Written Word of God? And are you seriously using that idea as some sort of defense of your own position? If there's a contradiction in the Bible, then your faith is in ruins; you'l have "proven" far too much!

There is no contradiction. St. Paul never says that we are saved by faith ALONE. (Go look. Nowhere. Zip. Nada.)

When he refers to "works", he refers to works OF THE LAW (i.e. the works of the Old Covenant Mitzvot--e.g. the dietary laws, sanitary laws, etc.--which weren't part of the natural moral law). Didn't you see the repeated references to that, in all the multi-colored Scripture quotes you listed? Look at Romans 3, for starters...

[kinsman redeemer]

you miss the fact that the opinions of men were cited authoritatively

You miss the fact that I said these would be the BASIS for my response (if you would have allowed me to use proper hermanuetucs.)

You are long-winded and don't say much. Your arguments are weak and you mislead and misdirect the dialog. And as usual, you intentionally misunderstand God's Word as you continue to follow a false doctrine.

There is ONE sin that is unforgivable: it is rejecting Jesus Christ and He is the living Word of God.

I will not be replying to you anymore on this thread. It is now ancient history.

[paladinan]

Mm-hmm... and your irony meter should be at the breaking point, now, BTW. Your posts really do show a bizarre sort of symmetry: an angry post followed by saying that I "seem angry", a post about "following-side-shows and derailing the point" followed immediately by your own tangent about my alleged "anger", and now a long-winded and insubstantial comment about how my comments are allegedly long-winded and insubstantial. Pretty impressive, in a morbid sort of way. :)

You'r welcome to bow out, as you wish; I think I can safely let the reader decide which of our comments was the more (or less) logical and on-point. Have a blessed day!