I’ve been trying to understand what the New Testament teaches about sin, repentance and being saved by Jesus.

I’ve read that there are two different kinds of sins, venial sins & grave or mortal sins.

And I’ve read that Christians believe that committing a mortal sin will cut you off from the Kingdom of G-d.

Mortal sins are not just things like murder either. They are some pretty common sins that I won’t list but it’s safe to say a lot of people commit them on a very regular basis.

So what happens if you have committed one or more mortal sins and then die before you go to confession?

What happens if you’re in the middle of committing one of those mortal sins and die? (You’re presumably not even truly sorry yet or else you wouldn’t be doing it to begin with.)

From what I’ve read the Church teaches you will go to hell.

But if that’s true then why did Jesus die for our sins? I don’t understand how it’s possible that Jesus died for our sins and yet even if we believe in him, we can still go to hell if we didn’t go to confession for those sins before we die.

I thought they were already paid for through the blood of Jesus.

Is your question about Christians in general or Catholic related to going to Confession?

A born-again protestant (Catholics aren't big on being born-again, they need a priest to handle that for them) doesn't need to worry so much about it.

Get saved, get the Holy Spirit (you'll know when you've got that), confess your sins, ask Christ to come into your life.  If you are really saved, you'll change and most importantly, treat others right.

Taking the Lord's name in vain is pretty bad but I don't think it means a potty mouth.  In general, I don't use "G** Da**it!"  I noticed I use it if very, very angry and not thinking straight.  I immediately repeat though.

If you do certain sinful things, stop or work towards stopping.  Mainly, treat others like you'd want to be treated.

There are very few times when each of us does not know what the right thing to do is.

Good luck, God bless you.  If you are honestly trying to find God, He'll notice and remember that when the time comes.

Color me surprised then:
Are Catholics born again?

Catholics and Protestants agree that to be saved, you have to be born again. Jesus said so: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

When a Catholic says that he has been “born again,” he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being “born again.”

"The anti-baptismal regeneration position has no biblical basis whatsoever. So the answer to the question, “Are Catholics born again?” is yes! Since all Catholics have been baptized, all Catholics have been born again. Catholics should ask Protestants, “Are you born again—the way the Bible understands that concept?” If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again “the Bible way,” regardless of what he may think."

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be confusing.

I just want to know what the right answers to those questions are according to the New Testament and G-d.

People have told me to read the NT and I have.

Understandably, I have some questions about what I read.

So I looked up what others had to say about it and a lot of stuff about sin and forgiveness came up. That left me with more questions, so here I am.

It would help if you understood that, like Jews, "Christians" run the gamut and are not a monolith.

So you're not going to get a straight answer since we have everyone here from Traditional Catholics to folks who don't believe in the divinity of Christ, to folks who think that rock music and light shows with Pastor Skinny Jeans is somehow "Biblical" Christianity. That range is huge.

If you choose to look at what historically verifiable Christians believe, you will see an answer that doesn't have its theological beginnings 1500-1950+ years removed from the traditional understanding.

They join Christ in Paradise thanks to His grace.

“Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

What are those?  Do you have an example?

As a Baptists, I believe that Christ took all of our sins on the cross.  None of them are excluded.  Catholics, I am told, have a different view.  But I can only tell you what I believe from years of study.

Thank you for the response @Naked_Salad

Are you saying that Protestants don’t believe they can go to hell for their sins, once they’re saved?

Because the NT says if you sin after you’re saved, no sacrifice will cover your sins.

Hebrews 10:26, NLT says: "Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins."

Thanks for any help you can give me on the topic.

You’re talking about Roman Catholic and Orthodox beliefs.

Protestant churches don’t believe those things because they’re not biblical (tradition vs Bible is one of the biggest causes of the reformation)

And no there are no levels of sins to Protestants. Sin is sin aside blasphemy which the Bible explains though somewhat mysteriously. All has been paid for that believe on Christ. And this is the good news (aka the Gospel)

simple truthful answer

Protestant = Your going to heaven regardless because you can't lose your witness.
Catholic = Really no one is capable of judging the salvation or damnation of someone else.

Thank you for your concern @cavsct1983

I do understand that. I’m interested in what they all have to say. Several individuals on here have been able to give me straight answers on array of religious topics, which is all I’m asking for.

Everyone in the world comes to believe what they believe based, in part, on what others have had to say about it.

Since this is a forum, “a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged” and a religious forum at that, I figured it’s a good place to ask my questions.

Btw, I have not seen a single thread topic on this entire forum site, where the OP was ever given the same straight answer from everyone who responded.

If they did it wouldn’t be a very interesting forum.

With that in mind, I appreciate your response as well.

Thank you!

How can those be anything but two different religions?

Groups that aren't upstart offshoots, with historical traceability back to the Apostles and demonstrative writings showing the development of doctrinal understanding.

In short, a family tree that doesn't start with some nut who decided they know better than the myriad of folks who came before them.

The only groups that can remotely approach this onus, which is necessary, are either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox.

Protestantism and its huge number of offshoots as a source is like saying the liberal machinations of folks like SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor represent the thoughts of the Founding Fathers; what a risible idea. One shouldn't look to Sotomayor for thought which reflects the Founding Fathers. They would have to look to someone like the late Justice Scalia or similar who actually look beyond the mere document of the (analogizing here) Constitution (Bible) to the Tradition (extra-Constitutional writings, pre and post) and Councils (transcripts of meetings, congressional minutes, etc.) from those earlier days.

Otherwise we get idiotic crap like abortion is ok, homosexuality is ok, etc. in both political and theological circles which deviate from said Fathers.

Hey, what a traditionally Catholic answer! so logical!

Be careful, you might get a warning for saying the truth.

There's a first time for everything I guess.

Even someone's first Catholic epiphany.
It's always amazing how the closer one gets to the source, the more "Catholic" their ideology becomes.

I think I see what you're saying; only Catholics and Orthodox are actual Christians, and every single Protestant denomination is not actually Christian at all?

If I’m understanding you correctly dividing sins into two categories is not biblical, is that right?

One of the things I had just read was where St. Aquinas said, “...Jesus makes a distinction between two types of sins.” He goes on to describe them as I did in my OP.

I have yet to be able to find where at in the NT he got that from.

If it is not there as I think you’re saying, that’s very helpful!!

Thank you for the response!

Sometimes things are so obvious it's comical.

Interesting take on this issue everyone.

I appreciate all the responses about the differences between Protestants and Catholics.

I didn’t know that some people considered them to be two totally different religions.

Regardless, if you believe you are a Christian and you know the answer to my OP please feel free to answer it, I’d like to hear it.

If you’re not a Christian and yet you feel you know the answer to my OP, I’d like to hear that too.

Thanks again.

"mortal" sin or not (I grew up Catholic and have not heard that term used in 25+ years in a non-Catholic Church), if you have put your faith in Jesus and are saved, Jesus is your intercessor b/t the judgement and wrath you deserve.  He paid it all for YOUR sin, mortal or not mortal.  He died once and you are covered by his blood.  As long as you believe and repent, your sins are covered by our Savior.  That is indeed good news.

No Christian said that, and this pattern of leaping to conclusions is something you should refrain from doing.

It serves no purpose to make absolute statements out of one comment, which is a repeated pattern among some posters.

Someone says, "I don't really believe in the Trinity", and another guys says, "I do believe in the Trinity".

Then you come in and say, "Wow, I didn't know that no Christians could agree on whether the Trinity is real".

Why would anyone 1) arrive at that drastic conclusion as opposed to arriving at "Wow, I didn't know that some Christians do not agree on whether the Trinity is real".? and 2) feign "shock" as though no other religion has disagreements?

It's disingenuous, and not productive to the conversation. When someone asks Christians for their insight, it makes no sense to quote non-Christians as the source of the insight and ignore the people the thread was SUPPOSED to address.

Just so I'm clear on two things:

1. You are Christian?
2. You are saying Protestant and Catholic are two different religions?

I'm Catholic, raised Protestant, and converted in my late 20's.

In many ways, yes they are two completely different religions. In other ways, no. Typically, to be considered a Christian, one must be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But the theology behind said baptism cannot be foreign to the traditional understanding. Hence, the Catholic Church does not consider Mormons as Christians, since they believe radically different things about God. Conversely, many fundamentalist Protestants do not consider Catholics as Christians for a variety of reasons.

For example, would you consider an ethnic Jew a religious Jew if he thought eating pork was no big deal, or decided to start his own synagogue with theology that had no basis in the basics of traditional Jewish understanding that can be historically traced?

It becomes complicated. Hence, the Catholic Church doesn't call groups "churches" if they have no Apostolic succession, though she may recognize individual members as Christians.

But when we move beyond the platitudes of "well, we agree on the necessities!" (no, we don't) and the false charity of "getting along" (which is not a tenet of Christianity, frankly), one begins to see the very large gap between many Christian milieus.

So, does Sotomayor represent the thought of the Founding Fathers? Of neo-Marxist liberal thought, perhaps. But certainly not of the men who, at least for now, still have their faces printed on the worthless paper we call money.

Regarding the Hebrews verse from earlier. This Is from the NIV Study Bible
“These verses describe someone who “deliberately” (i.e., willfully, defiantly) sins by repudiating Christ. In two other places (5:2; 9:7; see notes) Hebrews alludes to the OT distinction between defiant sins and sins committed in ignorance or error (Lev 4–5; Num 15:22–31). The defiant sin of Num 15:30–31 seems to lie behind this reference. Here “sinning” is mentioned generally in v. 26 and then defined specifically in v. 29 as arrogantly rejecting Christ. The same pattern occurs in 6:6: “fallen away” is general, and the latter part of the verse describes repudiating Christ. So this does not refer to Christians falling prey to everyday temptations and failings; Hebrews encourages us to seek God’s mercy and grace in such cases (2:18; 4:15–16; 12:1–6). no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment. This reinforces that “sinning” (v. 26) refers to repudiating Christ. Since Jesus’ sacrifice is God’s full and final provision for human salvation (chs. 7–10), “no sacrifice for sins is left” for someone who rejects its value. “Fearful . . . judgment” is the tragic fate for such a person (vv. 28–31).”

see inside, but I agree

This is about as best as it can be summed up.

Are Protestants, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists Christians? I would say yes, 98% of them are because of certain fundamental tenets; i.e. baptism, Messiah, resurrection etc.

However, once we start getting into the weeds of theology, it can become muddy. Still, IMO the generally accepted notion of what constitutes a Christian by the majority of christians is mostly present in most Catholics and non-catholics.

But to say we don't see each other as Christians would not be accurate for most people IMO.

I'm Catholic and this is basically what we were taught. Jesus died so our sins could be confessed and forgiven sufficiently enough to enter heaven. Before that it was closed off to the average Joe. Unconfessed venial sins send you to purgatory until you suffer enough to make up for it and are allowed to go on to heaven. Unconfessed mortal sins send you straight to hell forever. Unbaptized babies who die go to Limbo to be taught about Jesus and cared for by their guardian angels (in visual form) until the last days. There is no suffering there but no beatific vision either.

No temptation is stronger than we are. Tell the devil to flee in Jesus's name and he will but most people prefer what the devil has to offer and Jesus gets pushed aside. At that moment we took the side of evil over righteousness and for that we are judged unworthy to enter God's home if we die without reconciliation.

Hey @cavsct1983 my apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying in your above post.

In a nutshell, I thought you were simply saying,

The idea that Protestants and Catholics represent two totally  different religions is a traditional and logical point of view held by some Catholics, and it’s the truth.

I hadn’t heard that before, hence my comment, but I did not find it shocking in the least. Nor did I see it in a negative light whatsoever. (I literally thought, “that’s interesting, I could see that easily”.) That was it.

Again, I apologize if I incorrectly interpreted your response.

For anyone else who may have found my post offensive, for any reason, I am sorry about that as well.

I was just quickly summarizing what I thought had already been said and trying to steer my thread back to my original questions b/c I really do want to hear answers to them.

I'm not into playing games with a God who can get you on a technicality because you died unexpectedly and weren't able to jump through the right hoops at the nanosecond before death.

How are you being "got" if you know the "rules" of the game before hand. Moreover, the "game" as you explained is an oversimplification. It's a 2000 year old theological system, not an off-the-cuff system.

Finally, if the "game" was created by God, then whether one is into it or not doesn't matter.

That's my point. God is not toying with us. He gives us the means to salvation through His Son. It's not a game of hand slap where you've got to get that last word in before your demise. Jesus already bitch slapped sin and death for all who acknowledge Him as Lord and Savior.

He sure did do the parts in italic. These are are foundational teachings in Catholicism.

The difference, I think, is that Catholics follow the Bible's teaching on Salvation that can be lost when the person chooses to turn against it, even after being "saved".

Not mine:

John 15:1-6 – Notice that Jesus makes it very clear: IF you abide in him you are saved. IF you do not abide (i.e., continue to remain) in him you are lost. The most important thing to note is that our salvation is conditional not unconditional. (Consider just some of the conditional statements of Scripture from the Gospel and Epistles of John and the Book of Revelation: John 6:51; 7:17,38; 8:31,36,39,42,51,52; 10:9; 11:40; 12:26,47; 13:17,35; 14:15,23; 15:6,7,10,14 … I John 1:6-10; 2:1,3,15,19,24,29; Revelation 2:5,10,16; 3:3,5,20; 22:18,19; etc.)

Romans 8:12-13; 11:19-22 – Again notice that Paul says that IF we (believers) live according to the flesh we will die but IF we (believers) live according to the Spirit we will live. We believers thus have a choice to make – even we who are already saved! Our salvation is thus conditionally based by and on God’s terms. And so it is possible that a Christian can be “cut off” and thus lost. (Notice the conditional statements in Romans 8:9,10,11,13,17; 11:17,18,21,22,23,24; etc.)

II Peter 1:2-11 – And notice that Peter clearly tells us that our salvation is conditional and that “IF we do these things we will never stumble, and a glorious entrance will be given to us into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” What if we don’t do the things Peter mentions? Then we are eternally lost! It is that simple. We should realize by now that Scripture everywhere is filled with the very conditions of salvation and damnation often denoted by that little word, “IF”! Everyone seems to ignore this little word.

Galatians 5:1-6 – The Apostle Paul clearly states that Christ has set us free. He has saved us! And yet he goes on to say to believers that if they follow another gospel (Galatians 1:6-10 cf. II John 1:7-11) they are “cut off from Christ” and “they have fallen from grace.” See Galatians 5:4. You cannot fall from somewhere you have never been! In other words the argument that “Anyone who is lost was never saved in the first place” or “Anyone who is lost was never really a believer” is nonsense. While that may be true of some it is not true of all. Christians can fall from grace! Paul said so. A saved believer can fall from grace. And it is a lying heresy to say that they can’t.

II Peter 2:18-22 – The Apostle Peter clearly tells us that the believer can fall from grace and be lost! Peter is talking about those who “escaped the world through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ” who then become “entangled” and “overcome” by sin and the flesh. And then he specifically says of them, “their latter end is worse than the beginning and it would have been better if they had never known the way of righteousness than to have turned from the way of truth.” See II Peter 2:20-22. There is no way to explain any of this away by saying, “Well, they were never really Christians to begin with.” Peter says they were believers and now they are worse off than if they had never believed. It would have been better if they had never become Christians!

Hebrews 6:4-8; 10:26-39 – The inspired writer of Hebrews also gives us clear and simple statements of the possibility of apostasy and of losing our very salvation. If one loses one’s salvation it is not God’s fault it is their own fault and they have no one to blame but themselves for their sin. The writer talks about those who were once “enlightened” who have “tasted of heaven” and who have “become partakers of the Holy Spirit” and who have “tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the age to come” – if these aren’t true believing Christians who is? – and IF they “fall away” they are only good for being “cursed” and “burned” in hell. Later the writer of Hebrews goes even further when he says that we can “sin willfully” (the background for “willful sin” is found in Numbers 15:30-31,32-36) and if we do we will never be saved, only the wrath of God and hell awaits us. Notice all the ways that the writer says we can and will be lost if we turn against the Lord. That is why the writer of Hebrews says this: “Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (Hebrews 2:1-2)

Thank you @HEATSEEKER That is one of the most succinct responses ever and I could not appreciate it more. You have confirmed for me that much of what I have read in certain places, I do understand.


As a side note: Your description of how when we give into temptation we are taking the side of evil is a very sobering thought that will stay with me.

But also remembering, “no temptation is stronger than I am”
makes the world seem a lot less scary to me and brings me a lot of comfort.

Thanks again for your great post!

@BrawnyDog it sounds like you’re saying that you believe once you’re saved, you’re always saved as long as you continue to acknowledge Jesus as Lord

Your sins are already covered. (Even if you haven’t asked for forgiveness for them). Is that correct?

I do appreciate the detailed response, that's exactly what I thought you meant.  I hope this clarifies for other posters as well who might have been confused.

Wrong. I’m a Protestant and everyone I know agrees with you on only God can judge. I certainly disagree with the first.

I think that others have explained it already. I'm glad that you recognized the disparity in my reply.

To over simplify history, the Catholic Church and its teachings date to the first century. This is the one Church that existed until the schism with the Orthodox some 1,000 years later. About 500 years after that we get Martin Luther. So by the mid/late 1500s we basically have three basic divisions of Christianity - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant. Fast forward to the present and now there are some 26,000+ 'denominations' all proclaiming to profess the truth.

This splintering of thought is clearly the work of satan. I'll be sticking with the Church present from the apostolic age with clear, definable lineage from Peter, which translated the scripture and defined its canon.

YMMV

You may disagree with the first, but MANY protestant, particularly Evangelical and Fundamental, Churches DO preach once saved always saved. In fact, Sola Fide and OSAS are becoming very much the norm in modern protestantism.

God doesn't distinguish between sins.

I had not heard that before, is that a common Catholic belief?

This may come as a surprise to God because several passages in the New Testament "are frequently interpreted" as referring to the unforgivable sin:

Matthew 12:30-32: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, any sin and blasphemy can be forgiven. But blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Mark 3:28–30: 28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. 30 - Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Luke 12:8-10: "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

and of course

"The term "mortal sin" is thought to be derived from the New Testament of the Bible. Specifically, it has been suggested that the term comes from the 1 John 5:16–17.[4]
In this particular verse, the author of the Epistle writes "There is a sin that leads to death."

And of course, what's most important, is that the notion of venial vs mortal sin is a doctrine derived from the Holy Spirit and given to His Church.

That God makes some distinction is not a new idea either.
From the OT:

"While there are many more examples that could be provided that call for various sacrifices that could range from a grain offering, to a dove, a sheep, goat or bull, the ones already provided should be enough to illustrate that God does not view all sin as the same.

In fact, the Book of Proverbs (6:16-19) identifies seven things that God hates although there is not any punishment proscribed for those. Scripture clearly indicates that God does view sin differently and that He proscribed a different punishment for sin depending upon its severity. While God does see sin differently we now have Jesus to forgive us of our sin."

One thing is for sure, these verses would not be in a book where the authors were trying to illustrate, “Once saved, always saved”.

Whereas I can see a lot of areas in the NT that may seem ambiguous, this certainly isn’t one of them.

No kidding.  That post certainly paints with an awful wide brush.

And while I disagree with the doctrine of OSAS, it re-arose in a time when men had claimed God's judgment for themselves by way of selling indulgences. The doctrine was an effort to specifically and rightly place God's judgment back into his hands. And as Luther's 95 theses points out, even salvation related indulgences were being sold (#21).

I was surprised to learn that the indulgences system is still in use today (link) though with significantly less direct cash payments for God's leniency.

Speaking of a broad brush, you seem to have very little knowledge of the frequency and extent of the "indulgence scandal". You also don't understand the doctrine of indulgences, that's why you are "surprised" that it exists today. Please explain what it is, and why you are "shocked" or "surprised" it is around.

The Catholic Church has NEVER officially condoned or encouraged the abuse of the indulgence doctrine. CERTAIN priests did, acting of themselves, not in accordance to Catholic doctrine. Moreover, the RCC quickly corrected abuse when found.

The Compendium to the Catechism says:

...Unfortunately the practice of indulgences has on occasion been improperly applied. This has been either through "untimely" and superfluous indulgences which humiliated the power of the keys and weakened penitential satisfaction or it has been through the collection of "unlawful profits" which blasphemously took away the good name of indulgences... (Indulgentiarum Doctrina, 8)

Not mine:

"There was a program to raise money for the building of St. Peter's Basilica and a plenary indulgence was offered.  A donation was asked for in proportion to one's earnings, but it was possible to gain the same plenary indulgence by prayers for the project and the usual conditions (confession, & communion)...SOME of the people sent to offer the indulgence to the peasants used slogans, over-simplified examples and other techniques to speak down to the crowds to entice them to make a donation. The priest charged with overall supervision of the offer in Germany was Fr. Tetzel. Luther attacked him in the 95 Theses and that was the start of the revolt.

The Pope launched an investigation. It was kind of a fiasco, which exonerated Fr. Tetzel. Yeah, it was a mess! John Pacheco says this:

The Pope (or the bishops in Germany) did not approve of the "selling of indulgences" ... there were abuses that priests and bishops did not correct and check. However, the Church has never taught that money remits temporal punishment for sin.

This 500 year old incident has become a theme that some Evangelicals pastors have repeatedly preached to their congregations about Catholics. This has caused much disdain for the Catholic Church in some Evangelical circles, even those with their own financial scandal, including some TV Evangelists. The Church is for saints and sinners and it is not surprising that some Church people have done sinful things. "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." (Jn 8:7) "All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23)."

Indulgences don't save one from hell. They only lessen the temporal punishment for sin  (time in purgatory) for those already saved from hell.

Re-arose? It never existed until John Calvin LOOSELY began to play with it via "Eternal Security" and the "Perseverance of the Saints".

If you claim it existed in the early Church, then...cite?

The indulgences are a system where some priest or representative of the church announces that if you do a specific work, you gain a specific rewards. Though after the 60's it appears the rewards became more non-specific.

I am surprised that it still exists today because I'm not catholic and don't attend mass regularly and hoped that Catholics would have moved past that in the counter-reformation.


I'm at a loss as to what specific thing I said that you think was incorrect. Your post demonstrated that I was correct in every phrase. (i.e. apparently I have a pretty good knowledge of the "indulgence scandal") and where to stop. Specifically:

• The doctrine of OSAS re-arose in the specific time of the protestant reformation, which the "indulgences scandal" was the spark that set off the tinderbox (a fact confirmed by your post)
• It was specifically to put God's judgment back into his hands because evil men were selling salvation (a fact objectively confirmed)

What I didn't say was that the RCC exonerated the main culprits (but you did for whatever reason), as I didn't think it was pertinent. And further, in an ironic twist, the Pope and his cardinals are currently housed in the edifice built with funds from the sales, as I didn't think it was pertinent either (but you brought it up for whatever reason).

Oh my....