Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Springfield Reformer
He never says anything remotely related to “all sins are equal.”

Nor have I said that

You did ... go back and reread what you wrote that all sins are mortal.

There are commandments of greater and lesser significance, but nothing in Matthew 5 suggests there are some sins that separate us from God and some that don't.

We are all sinners. There was only one man born without sin and they crucified Him. What is your point?

345 posted on 09/04/2015 3:22:56 PM PDT by NYer (Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy them. Mt 6:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies ]


To: NYer
NY: He never says anything remotely related to “all sins are equal.”

SR: Nor have I said that

NY: You did ... go back and reread what you wrote that all sins are mortal.

Nope, sorry.  Didn't. You haven't read me correctly.  I never said all sins are equal.  I said they are all mortal.  There is a huge difference, and I think it is an important part of our inability to agree.  What I take to be happening is that because I agree with Paul that the wages of sin is death, you translate that to equality in every possible sense. That's just jumping the rails. I have attempted repeatedly to assure you I do recognize that sins are different in their degree, in their effect on people, and so forth.  

But they do share that common theme, that they are by definition mortal, death-causing, both spiritually and physically, because they all cross the Edenic line: They all sacrifice the love of God on the alter of self. They are all rebellion to the same Law-Giver.  They are all equal in the effect of pitting us against God and His love, with eternal consequences each and every one.  For the love of a fruit, all humankind was damned.  But for Christ, we would all stay dead in Adam's sin. Sin kills. Sin is always fatal. Mortal, as you call it.

Two things can be different in many respects but have the same outcome.  For example, whether I run over a cat, or shoot it, it still ends up dead.  Two different acts, one deadly consequence.  What I see in this phony distinction between fatal versus non-fatal sins is the desperate effort to avoid the hard truth that our sin problem is much worse than we'd like it to be.  How cool it would be if we could contain it to some short, well-defined list, which, if we avoid, we'll be OK. It's a form of bargaining with God.

But it isn't truthful.  Jesus set the standard so high that people should realize they are a hopeless case without a miracle of redemption.  As Paul says, the law is our teacher, to lead us to Christ, to our desperate need of Him.  I like what CS Lewis said too.  He was befuddled by those who thought the Sermon on the Mount was pleasant reading, because to him, it was like being hit in the head with a sledge hammer.  He understood.  Our sin isn't just a wart here and there we can cut off and be done with it.  It runs like a cancer into our deepest parts, and we cannot keep it from killing us without the intervention of a divine miracle.  The Sermon on  the Mount, in fact the whole law of God, is a mirror in which we should see our terrifying condition and come to God begging for mercy and healing.

But instead, what do we do? We make lists.  Much more manageable.  Just stay off that really bad list and we''ll probably be OK, especially if we do X, Y, and Z, unlike those wretches over there.  Little better than shamanism.  And such a disappointment at the end of days.

The Gospel is about resurrection, because it must be.  It is the only possible cure.

Peace,

SR

349 posted on 09/04/2015 4:24:57 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson