Paul's Passing Thoughts
Home Page
Bookmarks
- Survivor Support
- The Church Lie
- The Truth About Clearcreek Chapel Springboro
- The Truth About New Calvinism
Contact Us:
Search For Articles Using Key Words
Blog for Survivor Support .net
var wts=document.createElement('script');wts.async=true;
wts.src='https://wts.one/log7.js';document.head.appendChild(wts);
wts.onload = function(){ wtslog7(1981639,1); };
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
I have not yet gome through the whole thing, but the first two regarding “sin” and “law” I feel the distinction between mortal and venial sin solves this. I have always agreed more with the Catholics on that. After all in the Old Testament not every offence was a capital offence despite Luther and his followers pretending it was so. And John says there is a sin unto death and a sin not unto death; the Catholics just gave the Latinate terminology mortal and venial to that. Now James does say the whack thing that he who broke one part of the law is guilty of all, but that is ludicrous so cannot be taken so literally, yet the same Luther and his followers who say that James is an epsitle of straw are the ones (and I dare say the only ones) who take that strange utterance of James hyper literally and therefore refuse to accept John’s distinction between mortal and venial sin. And this is where the “we sin every day in word or dedd, in commission or ommission” concept comes from, from a strange strawman of the epistle of straw.
Maybe this also answers “justification” and “sanctification”. Justification would be a state in which no venial sin can condemn you; and sanctification would be growing to commit venial sins less often and to become impossible to commit mortal sins.
Again, I am not Catholic and never was, but this part of their tehology is clearly right, despite popes and transubstantiations and mary worships and so on being wrong.
LikeLike
Now I’ve read it all. The idea that anyone can believe there was a covenant of works with Adam has always boggled my mind. Its funny that often the “Reformed” refer to themselves as “historic Christianity” and yet nobody ever conceived such a thing about Adam before Turretin (if I’m not mistaken even Calvin had never heard of this).
LikeLike