Zwingli was also a murderer

Nope.
Instead, I pray that children don't fall into your error,
by accidentally listening to you.

God's Law is clear.
And Justice is clear.
Appropriate punishment for appropriate crime.

A thief has to pay back 2fold or 4fold for instance, not something else.

An unplanned homicide gets banishment.
Planned murders can expect death penalty under eye for an eye.

 

Your teaching here is unfortunately erroneous.
It is similar to other Protestant errors, which are recent nonsensical 'magical thinking', and hence worthless.

For instance, many quote,
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ezek. 18:20)
as if it supported your thesis that any sin no matter how small,
earns the death penalty.
But the original context of this saying,
which was never meant to stand alone
as a universal blanket statement,
shows that the meaning is this:

NO SUBSTITUTIONS,
and God DOESN'T punish the innocent for crimes done by the guilty.
Each person is responsible for his own crimes,
and God will not punish a father for the sins of a son, or vice versa.

In other words, the popular saying in Israel is wrong:
The children's teeth should NOT be set on edge
because the father ate sour grapes.

A careful read of the whole chapter 18 of Ezekiel
makes the true meaning of God's message here plain:

"The soul that sins, he shall die." means this:

"The one who commits the crime will die for it,
not someone else. That would not be true justice,
and that most certainly isn't GOD's justice."​

If God is going to punish,
He will punish the right person.
There will be no mistakes on Judgement Day.

 

Who is "we"?

Are you a part of the appointed government (the THEOCRACY) of Moses?

If not, you have no mandate or authority to set yourself up as a law enforcement party.

The moral law never changes however, nor does the punishment.

Homosexuality is a death penalty offense.
Bestiality is a death penalty offense.
Cursing your parents is a death penalty offense. (Mark 7:10)
Jesus isn't kidding.
If you are ashamed of the Gospel, you may be shamed BY the Gospel.


God can enforce His own law.
He doesn't need you.
You can read about God enforcing His law daily in the paper,
after much patience and longsuffering.

You would be a fool to forget:

"Their foot shall slip in due time."

 

Dear David (Lamb):

First of all, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my comments. I also thank the Lord for your continued good spirit and attitude, which I find to be sincere and open, and genuinely curious, as opposed to closedminded or argumentative.

I will try to answer your questions and continue below:

I meant to say that the Bible does NOT teach that all sins are mortal sins. If Catholics also make a similar distinction to mine, great, but I couldn't care less. I strongly suspect however, that their definitions and their consequences are quite different than mine however.

God is first of all just, and His righteousness requires fairness, balance, and perhaps (but not necessarily), mercy. God cannot inhumanely punish the innocent unfairly, nor do I believe He could do so at all without explaining to a man how and why he was in error or in sin. 'The Law of the Lord is perfect.' (Ps. 19:7) If the Law of God is just, and yet "our Law does not judge a man until hearing him", (John 7:51) then we can expect God to be at least as fair and righteous as the Law which He gave us is.

God secondly, is merciful, and this implies from a practical viewpoint that sins are forgiven. What sins? The Bible indicates that almost EVERY sin can be forgiven (not that it will be!). Jesus said "every manner of sin will be forgiven EXCEPT blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 12:31-32) (It is obviously very important then to find out what that is, but I leave it for another time).

Third, some people were not forgiven. We are told that Judas, whose crime was the actual betrayal of Jesus unto torture and death, was lost. (Acts 1:16-26)

Men are not held accountable for what they do not know. The blind man did not know Jesus, but was not under any wrath. (John 9:35-36, and 9:3)

Men are accountable for what they DO know. (Acts 12:23)

The Law demands death for mortal sins (Heb. 10:28)

The Law demands less for lesser sins (Exod. 22:1)

The NEW Testament distinguishes between greater and lesser sins: "He who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11).

Not all sins lead to death, but some do. Some sins allow a man to be restored to the body of Christ (1st John 5:16). Other sins, including unrepentance, make a man an outcast, banished, or remove him from the fellowship of community of Christ.

Christian children, and probably all children, are born under the general grace of God, and are not under wrath or condemnation until they fall into serious sin. "else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. ." (1st Cor. 7:14)

Agreed.
Therefore, who is Jesus? a human being?

You are here discussing the concept of atonement, vicarious substitution, and remission of sins via penal suffering.

We'll leave that to one side for the moment, because it doesn't address the question of whether some sins are not mortal sins, or "death inducing" sins.

 

Actually, I'm easy to figure out.
Its just not convenient for those with an agenda.

I'm an Anglican (by birth, study, attendance, baptism),
who BELIEVES IN THE BIBLE (unlike most other Anglicans).

Unfortunately, that makes me not only unpopular in the world,
but also, not really surprisingly, unpopular among Anglicans too.

 

Well, first I disagree that the division and distinction between sins is merely a Roman Catholic doctrine. The Bible, especially the OT Law, makes a great many subtle distinctions between various sins.

This difference between individual sins (plural) and the category "SIN" (general, generic, inclusive, universal) is part of the reason for the confusion as to the meaning of Romans 6:23 etc.

Neither does Paul say,
"the wages of sins (plural) is death."

Paul first of all is here talking of all sin, sin as a type, a category, an identity, an abstract noun naming a whole group of activities with specific properties.

Paul would tell you, sin is known, and (adequately) defined by the LAW of God. We know instinctively a key difference between a CRIME (something forbidden by the criminal code of a country) and simply an obligation (something which is not forbidden, but has consequences). If I park my car, but the time runs out on the meter, through no fault of my own (I am delayed), I pay a parking ticket. I haven't committed a crime, its just a misfortune of circumstance. I agreed to the risk of a ticket when I parked my car. This doesn't mean I confessed I was a parking violator, or intended to overstay my parking time.

But even among crimes, we also have a God-given sense of fairness and justice: We don't cut off someone's hand for stealing, which is OVERpunishment. We could rightfully impose a 4-fold penalty for stealing, as a proper deterent to discourage stealing. It would also be wrong to simply make a man pay back what he stole, because this would not give him any reason not to steal again. God's law is perfect, meting out justice and mercy.

If we would not cut off a man's hand for simply stealing a loaf of bread, then God would not kill a man or throw him in hell for stealing the same loaf of bread:
"If you being evil know how to give good things to your own children,
how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?" (Matt.7:9-11)
Jesus instruction would be absurd, and useless, and meaningless, if God wasn't kinder, more merciful, and greater in generosity than men:
"If you only have mercy on those who do so to you,
what reward can you expect? Even sinners do the same." (Matt. 5:46-47).
Jesus' teaching here would be worthless, if God were more cruel than men.

If God really were as petty, cruel, heartless and unrighteous as a man,
then Jesus' teaching is in vain, and angry atheists and blasphemers
who say God is unrighteous and cruel would be correct.

 

It matters not to me who lines up.
Its whether or not what a man says is true that matters.
I have no "doctrine" fixed on tablets of stone.
I do have a Bible, that I trust can be intelligently
and spiritually interpreted and discerned.

If a teaching of the Bible finds itself in opposition to an Anglican or Evangelical,
who do you think is going to back down?
Pharaoh, or God?
Who do you think is going to get spanked, and who will be doing the spanking?
the Anglican, the Evangelical, or God?

I think this is going to make a good joke:
An Anglican, and Evangelical, and God, went to a tent meeting, and...