Is it ever okay to lie to a corrupt person in order to prevent them from committing a grave sin? For context, I have given $2000 AUD to someone who I am 90% sure is a scammer. He poses as someone helping disabled children in Uganda and used the song 'Oceans' on one of his videos with the lyrics 'Spirit lead me' to encourage people to donate. A contact in Uganda has done a thorough research and concluded that he is a scammer. Edit: From a purely human perspective, telling him I will report him unless he repays me the money I sent him (which was a loan) might discourage him from scamming others and using the name of the Holy Spirit in vain as he may have done, as he would not gain as much profit from what is probably his scam venture, but I am uncertain if this is the right approach. To be clear, in reality I will report him regardless. This would just be to encourage him to return the money.

When I ask this question I usually end up getting the response of: > “Well, that was just him giving us free will!” And then I ask why he would give us free will if he knew we would sin and would send us to Hell. Which gets the response of: > “Well, he didn’t want us to be robots! That would just be awful.” Then this goes on and on. What I’m trying to ask is: why did God give us the ability to sin if he would get so mad at us that he would send us to Hell? Why did God make Satan if he knew he would tempt Adam and Eve? Honestly why even make Satan in the first place?

A friend told me that "bad people" are limited when it comes to spreading the Word of God. According to scripture, how, and in what way, does sin hinder one's ability to spread the Word of God?

It is an observable fact that most people, even most Christians, don't repent of every sin individually before they die. Even that really great guy at church who's everyone's best friend and is first to let you know he messed up probably has been in a tiff or two where he thinks he was completely right and, in a lack of charity, or even with just a hint of pride, he refuses to see that he may have handled things improperly. For Catholics and Orthodox, with their theology of purgatory/tollhouses, as well as the Sacrament of Penance, this is a non-issue. That guy has all of those "venial" sins forgiven when he makes a good, honest confession of at least all his mortal sins. And, even if some venial sins slip through the cracks before death and aren't absolved, or aren't fully properly repented of, he will spend some time suffering in purgatory temporarily, and then will enter heaven for eternity thereafter. However, for Protestants who specifically reject both the doctrine of purgatory *and* make no distinction between mortal and venial sins (I'm thinking of those for whom the statement "stealing $1 and stealing $1 million are both damnable offenses" is generally a thought to be a true statement), it would seem that unless a man manages to truly and fully repent of every single little sin he has committed in his entire life, he would end up going straight to hell. Do Protestants who deny both of these tenets of Catholic faith simply bite that bullet, or do they have another way of working out this theological problem? ## Clarification I'm confused as to why I am getting lots of answers about earning our salvation. I am presuming that those answering believe, like I do, that people must repent of all of their sins in order to go to heaven. What I am asking is what Protestants think happens to people who neglect to repent of a single sin or maybe two or three, but otherwise live holy lives, when they die. I feel I must add this because I must have communicated something unclearly in the original body of the question.

I asked this question on the hermeneutics SE but I was told it would be better to ask here. What I can say is I'm not looking for an answer explaining that salvation is through Christ only, because it is obvious and it was even my assumption for this question. What I'm wondering is more about what Jesus actually meant if we know He is the only way of salvation. In Matthew 23:13, we can read: >But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because **you shut the kingdom of heaven against men**; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in - **Matthew 23:13 (RSV-CE)** In Catholic, Polish Bible "Biblia Tysiąclecia", there's a commentary to this verse (translated to English): >By imposing excessive requirements around the Law, **they made it impossible for people to observe it, thereby closing the way to salvation**. They also bear the greatest blame for the people's unbelief in Jesus the Messiah. Is this commentary accurate? I'm asking because in my opinion, someone could conclude from this verse that the Law could've been observed in a feasible way that leads to salvation which we know is actually impossible because humans are not able to observe the Law entirely and perfectly (that's why Jesus, who can do that, had to redeem us on the cross). And also, would observing the Law in a hard way be considered a sin if it "shuts the kingdom of heaven" or not so much sin as it leads to commiting one? If it is, who is actually responsible for that sin? Were people aware of it? If not, why would God close the heaven for such people if they did it unintentionally? Or were they kind of deceived, so both deceived and deceiver commited sin? The only interpretation that comes to my mind is it refers to observing the Law before Christ's death, but still those people couldn't observe the Law perfectly and needed redemption on the cross. Maybe it is just about observing in the right way as much as possible, not observing perfectly and entirely?

Note: I want to preface this by saying I am not a Christian. Everything I write comes from me trying to understand the topic from within my (mis)understanding of the Christian perspective. I am trying to understand if the Seven Capital Vices really is a comprehensive list of the bases of all sin, where all the bases are truly distinct. I can definitely recognize all of the vices as progenitors of sin, and they do seem basic, quite comprehensive, and fairly distinct. But I'd like to see that more logically. The arguments for such a view will differ, given that the topic has been looked at differently by various scholars. Take a look at this table shown in *Glittering Vices* by Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung. | Evagrius (4th c.)\* | Cassian (4th/5th c.)† | Gregory (6th c) | Aquinas (13th c.) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1\. Gluttony | 1\. Gluttony | *Pride = root* | Pride = root | | 2\. Lust | 2\. Lust | 1\. Vainglory | 1\. Vainglory | | 3\. Avarice | 3\. Avarice | 2\. *Envy* | 2\. Envy | | 4\. Sadness | 4\. Wrath‡ | 3\. *Sadness* | 3\. *Sloth* | | 5\. Anger‡ | 5\. Sadness | 4\. Avarice | 4\. Avarice | | 6\. Sloth (Acedia) | 6\. Sloth | 5\. Wrath | 5\. Wrath | | 7\. Vainglory | 7\. Vainglory | 6\. Lust | 6\. Lust | | 8\. Pride | 8\. Pride | 7\. Gluttony | 7\. Gluttony | \* Evagrius did not maintain a consistent order for his list. † Cassian's list is the same as Evagrius's but is ordered from carnal to spiritual. ‡ "Anger" and "wrath" translate the same Greek and Latin terms, which also refer to the passion or emotion of anger. I take most of my understanding from DeYoung's book, which utilizes Aquinas' taxonomy: Pride is not among the Seven; it is the root of them. So, the basis of all sin is Pride, and at the first stage of specification, Pride manifests as one of the Seven Vices. But, to understand if these Seven Vices actually represent what they're supposed to, we must ask: *specification of what*? They are all sin; they are all forms of Pride, but what differentiates them? If we look at the spectre of fundamental differences in how sin manifests, we are able to logically verify that the seven categories are indeed distinct, comprehensive, and basic. But I have yet to see a very logical explication of this. I begin with a little demo of the kind of thinking I am looking for below: > When Pride blossoms into sin, what is the first "choice" of specification to be made? Well, to ask that, we must ask by what mechanism sin works? All that exists is from God. So, sin must be a corruption of God's work. For us to work as individuals, societies and as a species, we need to have drives. Drives can be placed on a taxonomy of basicness. The most basic drives are those directly given to us by God; less basic drives are simply more specific instantiations of (combinations of) those basic drives. For example, we have the drive to consume sustenance. So, we may have the drive to walk over to a river; that drive is a more specific one, that is simply a specific, less basic, instantiation of the drive to consume sustenance. > > So, it follows that sin must be a corruption of our drives; a disordered effort to fulfill our drives. How could our efforts be disordered? Well, if our efforts to fulfill a drive bring about net wrong, then it is disordered. But how could our effort to fulfill God-given drives bring about net wrongness? If our efforts actually harm our overall fulfillment of our drives, then they bring about net wrongness (AKA, they are "disordered"). Our efforts to fulfill a drive can fail by not actually fulfilling that drive, or by leading to a greater detriment of other drives, or (usually) a little bit of both. In all cases, we are harming our overall fulfillment of our God-given drives. > >So, if this thinking is correct, we may identify the bases of sin by identifying the bases of drives. What is the root drive? Whatever the root drive is, (assuming Aquinas and DeYoung are correct), the corruption of this root drive is Pride. I find the **drive towards self-love** to be a logical contender. Not only does it seem like the basic drive that would give rise to all other drives, that all eventually lead to the attainment of good; it also seems like Pride would be the corruption/disordering of our God-given drive to love ourselves. > > But how to proceed from here? How does this drive/vice get specified at the most fundamental level? It is claimed that the taxonomy of vices has a stem/root made that is Pride, with seven branches (each representing a Capital Vice) sprouting from it, from which all other branches and fruits come from. In logical terms, that means that we start with Pride, and then we ask a single question regarding its specific instantiation. We must find a comprehensive list of distinct answers to this single question. If that list has seven answers that each correspond to a Capital Vice, then we will have shown the taxonomy to be correct. > > It seems obvious the question will be something like "how does one engage in Pride?" Or, equivalently, "how is one's fulfillment for the root drive disordered?" Obviously, that formulation is far too vague. To answer that question in full-detail would not give us seven answers, but thousands! Instead, it must be a much narrower form of this question. So, what is this question? What is the logical structure of the taxonomy of sin? How are the Seven Capital Vices basic, comprehensive, and properly delineated (i.e., all vices are distinct)? And how do they all stem from Pride?

### Background Early (pre Protestant Reformation) Christian writers from the 1st through 5th centuries like St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others seem to have universally condemned usury and defined it as charging any interest on loans, not merely excessive or extortionate rates. St. Ambrose of Milan (4th c.) explicitly stated the classic definition: > “Food too is usury and clothing is usury, and **whatever is added to the capital is usury**. Whatever name you wish to put upon it, it is usury” St. Augustine (late 4th–early 5th c.) likewise defined a usurer as anyone who expects back more than he lent : > "If thou hast given the loan of thy money to one from whom thou dost expect to receive something more than thou hast given; not in money only, but anything... **if you expect to receive more than you have given, you are an usurer**, and in this are not deserving of praise, but of censure." ### Question The practice of usury has had a mixed history in the Christian Church. How do modern Protestants define it, and do they still believe it is a sin? And what do they base their definition on? For example, is usury the collection of interest at any rate on a loan? Is it the collection of excessive interest?

Acts 15:29 and 21:25 carry over four requirements from the old testament to apply to gentile Christians - one of which is abstaining from sexual immorality. In Leviticus 20:18, it makes a big deal about having sex with a woman while she's on her period. > If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (ESV) However, Leviticus 15:24 makes it sound more like a ceremonial issue than a sexual immorality issue (which in that case may be a requirement which has passed away under the new covenant). > And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean (ESV) So the question is, what is the Biblical basis for claiming that a Christian husband is/is not permitted to have sex with his wife when she's on her period?

I seem to recall reading in the Bible some years ago that there will come a time when *"sin will be out in the open."* However, I have since tried to find it to no avail. Does this prophecy occur in the Bible; or perhaps, did I find it someplace else? Does anyone know where this may have came from?

Most denominations teach the idea that someone must feel guilt or remorse for their sins and must desire not to do them, however some like those teaching Calvinism or Once Saved Always Saved seemed to stop there while other denominations seem to suggest either certain more severe sins like the Catholics or any intentional sin like the Methodists must be repented of, or one is not in a State of Grace and one will go to hell. There is scriptural support in John, Romans and Galatians for both of these view points. I am wondering about an overview of how the different modern as well as the early Church soteriologies would reconcile the more well known grace passages (particularly among Calvinists and those supporting Once Saved Always Saved) with passages that say sinners would not inherit the Kingdom of God such as Romans 1:29-1:31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-6:10, Galatians 5:19-5:21, Ephesians 5:3-5:5, 1 Timothy 1:9-1:10, Revelation 21:8, and Revelation 22:15. I am curious to know about the doctrine of repentance in the apostolic age as well. I have looked at Jerome, Tertullian, and Chrysostom and how they taught some sins needed repenting of for one to be saved. I recognize from Romans to Revelations that there are lists of sins which say that people who commit them do not enter the Kingdom of God. I also know that the first thing Jesus asked the rich man was not whether he had faith in Jesus but did he keep the commandments. On the other hand John repeatedly mentions that those who have faith will be given eternal life. Romans seems to teach salvation by faith alone at least in the majority of its passages and Jesus also told the rich man that with God anything is possible. One iteration of the decalogue in the Old Testament (I believe it is Deuteronomy) teaches that God is merciful to those who love Him for thousands of generations.

### Introduction In the Hebrew Bible in Deuteronomy 30:15, God says that He is who sets the choice between good and evil before people: > See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. In the Lords Prayer in Matthew 6, God is asked to not lead people into temptation: > Our Father who art in heaven, > Hallowed be thy name. ... > **And lead us not into temptation**, > But deliver us from evil. There seems to be many possible answers from the Christian bible: Satan, mankind's own fallen nature, or even Jesus himself. ### Question In Protestant theology, who or what tempts people into sin?

Some disagree on whether a Christian in this life may fall utterly and lose or forfeit eternal life. However, most Christians do agree that after death, the Christian is eternally secure in heaven (or the new earth). And this seems to be well supported in Scripture: > **[John 10:28](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+10%3A28&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 28 A)"> I give them eternal life, and B)"> they will never perish, and C)"> no one will snatch them out of my hand. > > **[Revelation 21:4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+21%3A4&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 4 A)"> He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and B)"> death shall be no more, C)"> neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” So it seems clear that Christians could not be susceptible to another Fall . My question is, Why? What is the fundamental reason why Christians would not be susceptible to another Fall or rebellion against God? *Please answer from a Protestant, non-Calvinist perspective.* ---------- ### Possible responses I have considered ### > There will be no law, and thus no concept of sin *But wouldn't rebellion against God would be considered sin, even apart from a "law"?* > After death we no longer have a sin nature, and are thus incapable of sin *But weren't Adam and Eve created without a sin nature, and yet sinned?* > Satan will be vanquished, unable to tempt us *But didn't Lucifer rebel without being externally tempted? If we are unable to rebel without a tempter, that implies that we will have less free will than Lucifer and the angels had.* > We will be unable to sin, either through lack of free will, or prevention by God *The argument that I usually use and hear for the existence of free will is that God would rather have willful obedience than robotic obedience. Is God then hedging on this preference for the sake of our eternal souls?* > We have already been atoned for by Christ, so if we were to sin, it could not be counted against us *This allows for sin in heaven, which I can't buy. It contradicts Revelation 21:4 for one thing, and makes heaven imperfect*

Two people in their 80s have fallen in love and are sexually attracted to each other. Both are widows and do not want to marry again.

I have come across this phrase "***A born-again Christian has a new nature that cannot sin***" (or other versions written differently but carrying the same implication). Here is one example from this site and here is another more fulsome treatment from an evangelical perspective. Does this mean a born-again Christian can not sin? If we can still sin, then what is the purpose of that nature if it can not shield us from sin? ***How would/does a nature like this make us different from Abraham, Noah, Job, David or Moses?***

I’ve often heard a distinction made between *oppression* and *possession*, with the claim that while demons cannot possess Christians, they can still oppress them. In particular, I’ve heard it said that when a Christian struggles with an addiction or a persistent sinful habit, a stronghold they cannot seem to overcome, there may be a demonic influence behind it. This does not mean the believer is unsaved; rather, they are genuinely saved but still wrestling with a stronghold that requires deliverance. My question is: is there any scriptural support for the idea that Christians can be oppressed (but not possessed) by demons, and that they may need deliverance from such oppression, for example in cases where a demon is tied to an addiction or persistent sinful habit from their past that they have not yet overcome?

I have a multi-part question. - Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest? Genesis, Chapter 4 tells us about Cain and Abel. Genesis, Chapter 5 tells us about Seth and "other sons and daughters". I highly doubt that our species began with many acts of incest (not just for religious/legal/moral reasons but biological reasons as well), so how did humanity continue? As a Christian, am I obliged to accept one of the following? 1. Adam and Eve's progeny mated with descendants from another lineage that the Bible (through no apparent malice) failed to describe. 2. The story of Adam and Eve is just that - A story. It is a story that was passed down by way of oral tradition. It was never meant to describe actual historical events.

> No one knows the one-hundredth part of sin that clings to his soul. This quote is [frequently attributed to Calvin](https://www.google.com/search?q=No+one+knows+the+one-hundredth+part+of+sin+that+clings+to+his+soul+calvin) , but I can't find a specific citation or reference. Did Calvin actually say this, or something like it? Or has it been misattributed to him, perhaps as someone else's pithy summary of Calvin's teachings? Can anyone trace the origin of this quote or notion?

In 1 John 5:16–17, John distinguishes between “sin that leads to death” and “sin that does not lead to death”: >If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them 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 you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (NIV) What are some biblical or practical examples of sins that would fall under the category of “sin that does not lead to death,” and how should Christians approach them in prayer and fellowship?

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that He may be punished in our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the offended something that he love equally or even more than he hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of human kind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general therms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He is God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why did it needed for Christ sacrifice be in the sense of given His life to suffer and die on the cross, and not just an offering of Himself in this less bloodsheded way? I know that God could save us in any other way for Her is omnipotent, and that He choosed the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I reach another face of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Getsemani He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. Implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how then the Father pleases in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I thought of getting rid of these. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

Whenever we buy something there are many effects, some of which are not good. Some examples include supporting places of work that are rife with immodesty and are an unnecessary near occasion of sin to the people working there, companies supporting sinful behavior, companies doing unethical things, and the government using the tax to fund unjust wars. In these situations we must make use of the principle of double effect. One of the requirements for the action being permissible is that there be a *proportionately grave reason* to do it. I think it's fair to say that nothing other than sustenance and religious activities rises to this level. But since it doesn't, does that mean purchasing anything unnecessary is the mortal sin of scandal (*some word or deed that is itself evil* (funding evil stuff) *or has the appearance of evil* (not caring about funding evil stuff) *and provides an occasion of sin to another* (giving people money for doing evil things))?