If a man sees his brother committing a sin which is not a deadly sin, he should pray to God for him, and he will grant him life -- that is when men are not guilty of deadly sin, There is such a thing as deadly sin, and I do not suggest that he should pray about that; but although all wrongdoing is sin, not all sin is deadly sin.I don't know if that is some supposed "proof text". (If so, it's a lousy one!) I just happened to be cruising around the Bible the other day and I came across it and said unto my self, "Well bless my soul, WHAT do THAT mean?"
Okay, with respectful diffidence, try this wild hare(hair?) of an idea. Jesus once for all did what He did. Is the whatever-it-is which we call being born again or awakened or whatever superfluous? It's an addition of some kind. It is a bestowal/appropriation on/by you of the once for all act? Yes it is cheifly an apprehension of the act of Christ and of its meaning for you, but it is also certainly a grace. so it's a now "re-present-ation" of Good Friday, etc. 33 AD.
I GUESS I'm conjecturing something like this: It is not the sacrifice which is repeated in the Mass, the confession, or the individual's coming to Jesus, it is all "application".
And in other news, while I'm running things up various flag-poles, let me offer my distinction between "Sin" as a state and "sins" as acts. The state of Sin would be opposed to the state of Grace but "sins" happen in both of them. And I GUESS the concept of mortal sin - which I doubt is exactly what John had in mind, is that it's a sin which reaches to the level of rejecting Grace. An inadvertent "Sumbidge!" slipping from my ruby lips especially when in the company of say, nuns, would indicate a persistent disorder in self-control, awareness, "recollection" like that - a truth about me which could indeed metastasize into a trip on the down escalator. Shooting a man in Reno, just to watch him die -- that's probably a good example of someone who "doan need (in his lost mind) no feelthy, steenkin grace" and therefore "mortal". And when he "comes to himself" then a certain "Father I have sinned before ...." might be required before the father interrupts and says,"NICE to SEE you! C'm'ere, let me hug you!"
Just trying here, not even to sell, but to depict as not unthinkable.
What do you do with I John 5 16-17 (NEB) ......
Here it is in the NIV:
1 John 5:16-17 : 16 If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
So, here it is clearly arguable whether the sin spoken of leads to physical or spiritual death. In the commentaries I consulted on this, the views are all over the place, so I do grant that you have a leg to stand on. :)
Okay, with respectful diffidence, try this wild hare(hair?) of an idea. Jesus once for all did what He did. Is the whatever-it-is which we call being born again or awakened or whatever superfluous? It's an addition of some kind. It is a bestowal/appropriation on/by you of the once for all act? Yes it is chiefly an apprehension of the act of Christ and of its meaning for you, but it is also certainly a grace. so it's a now "re-present-ation" of Good Friday, etc. 33 AD.
Good paragraph. I do not believe that being born again is an "addition" to Christ's sacrifice at all. They are simply two different events within time that take place for all believers. As I have said, "Salvation" can be seen and measured by many different, and equally true, angles. So, No, being born again is not superfluous, because it is all part of the plan WITHIN time. Jesus died, in my view, for the sins of the elect. Then, later in time, and also earlier in time to tell the whole truth, the elect believed in God. The belief of the elect was predestined. It was not an independent act, apart from what Jesus did on the cross. It was intricately associated with it. It was a "package deal". :)
By the way you might be describing it, Calvary and an individual's belief are completely separate actions, one not necessarily having to do with the other. I don't see it that way at all. I believe that, outside of time, Calvary caused the beliefs of all of the elect.
The way I see the Roman Catholic view, as I understand it, is that Christ dying on the cross is like an item in a grocery store. People walk by, some put the item in their basket, some don't. Who cares who makes the choice, God apparently doesn't? This is the issue of EITHER God is omnipotent OR God doesn't care.
Being born again is certainly a grace, as you say, but I do not recognize it as a "'re-present-ation' of Good Friday, etc. 33 AD." I do not believe there is any "re". I would say that Christ died once and for all, with no strings attached, period, etc.
I GUESS I'm conjecturing something like this: It is not the sacrifice which is repeated in the Mass, the confession, or the individual's coming to Jesus, it is all "application".
Okay. I think I'm good with the existence of the application idea, but I have no idea where it comes from or on what it is based. From my POV, "application" is an invented and unnecessary step.
The state of Sin would be opposed to the state of Grace but "sins" happen in both of them.
Yes, absolutely.