No, Evolution Isn't True and Isn't Catholic

Genesis 6, Archaeological Confirmation · Jimmy Akin on Genesis 1—11 and the Magisterium · No, Evolution Isn't True and Isn't Catholic

Stephen C. Meyer joins the show tomorrow to tackle matters of creation and evolution. Don't miss it!
@pintswithaquinas | 20 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hs1_4cTC1dM

Evolution is dead in science, but still has a good thriving as a religion.

Including by Syncretists in the Vatican II sect.

Daniel Krcmar

@danielkrcmar5395

We've literally observed evolution happening.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 Oh, you mean things like Ateleryx Algirus and Erinaceus Europaeus having a common ancestor?

I meant things like pretending ape and man have one.

ochem123

@ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 Selection of traits via breeding practices includes an intelligence making any adjustments. We have never observed evolution of species as described by atheists. “Theistic evolution” is an ad hoc intermediate position. 🐬⚜️❤️‍🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Except, we have.

Scientists have observed, or identified through genetic tracking, the evolution of several new species and distinct populations in modern times. Key examples include the Big Bird finch lineage on Daphne Major, Pod Mrcaru lizards evolving new digestive traits, and numerous insects developing resistance to pesticides.

@ochem123 We have but I'll leave your ignorance to you to correct yourself.

ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 Do not confuse mutation and natural selection for “evolution.” Observing mutations and natural selections in observations of animals is not evidence of the origin of humanity. One must read Scripture and pray in order to know that.

What is the origin of the animals? Just as the Book of Genesis says. 🐬⚜️❤️‍🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Mutation and natural selection are quite literally the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

We have observed the evolution of new species.

Evolution was from the book 'The Origin of Species' not 'The Origin of Life'. Evolution does not negate the possibility of a creator as it doesn't not address what caused life.

ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 All mutations are bad. Did you not know that? Mutants are worse than the non-mutants. You claim that mutations lead to improvements?

Hybrids of animals, humans, and angels have been formed by intelligent beings to create monsters with mixed characteristics, but that is not a random process.

God’s hand guides all things, but you think randomness produces order? ️️‍🇻🇦🇺🇸️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Okay, this is clearly pointless. You are wrong. Science has observed this happening. I never said God's hand wasn't involved. Genesis 1-13 are historically read as allegory and not literal history.

ochem123

@dan @danielkrcmar5395 The Bible is literal, and allegory can only be applied under that lens. Do you read Genesis 1-13 to argue with the plain sense of the text? Or do you read it to understand what happened before you were born? Big difference. ️️‍🇻🇦🇺🇸️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 The Bible os a massive collection of literary works with historical records, laws, allegory, poetry, songs, etc.

You can't read literal as allegory as they're opposite definitions.

The early Popes, Church Farthers, thinkers and modern Popes read 1-13 as allegory and not literal history.

ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 If one reads the Bible with an open heart, one can see the Truths contained therein. Can you give a specific example you say is not literal? You cited thirteen chapters, rather than a specific idea. What concept are you saying is not literal? The Creation account? Six days? Why would you believe a secular “scientist” over a prophet of God? 🐬⚜️❤️‍🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Why would you believe a lay person over The Pope and early Church Farthers?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 "Genesis 1-13 are historically read as allegory and not literal history."

You are historically wrong.

They are historically read as literal history with an added layer of prophetic (meaning Christological) allegory.

@danielkrcmar5395 "Mutation and natural selection are quite literally the mechanisms by which evolution occurs."

That's a bit like saying sound laws, analogy, word swaps, borrowings are the mechanism by which languageS evolve.

That doesn't remotely mean that they could explain how language evolved from sth non-human. And what you propose cannot explain how man evolved from sth non-human or even how fish evolved into mammals.

@danielkrcmar5395 "Why would you believe etc"

You are misrepresenting, very gravely, the early Church Fathers.

And if by "the Pope" you meant Wojtyla or any of his successors, you are mislabelling him or them.

Daniel Krcmar

@hglundahl We have fossil records of fish turning into mamals and land mamales returning to the water.

It is, that's just how it is.

We know that Whales speak and use language, as well as having unique names for each other. Language is not unique to humans.

@hglundahl
- Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254)
- Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
- Clement of Alexandria (c. 152–217)
- Philo of Alexandria (1st Century)
- Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395)

- Pope Pius XII
- Pope John Paul II
- Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)
- Pope Francis

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 "We have fossil records of fish turning into mamals and land mamales returning to the water."

No, we don't. We don't have proof of descent in these series.

"We know that Whales speak and use language, as well as having unique names for each other."

No, we know they have unique names for each other.

They come as close to language as song birds, which is closer than apes do.

Neither whales and songbirds, nor apes, have double articulation or three levels, but song birds and whales at least has one articulation or two levels, namely different sounds combining for a name or a song.

In apes, it's one sound or gesture that means one message. That one not being a unique name. One level, no articulation.

@danielkrcmar5395 "Pope Pius XII"

Not mislabelled, but didn't call the chapters "allegory".

Origen, Augustine and I dare wager the other ones as well did affirm historicity of the narratives.

Augustine misunderstood Origen as having affirmed Christological allegory only and no history, he did make such a comment on the Ark, but it was just one sentence in desperation over what he saw as problems about it.

The fullest treatment of the chapters in Church Fathers is St. Augustine, City of God, and it is clearly affirming literal history.

Daniel Krcmar

@hglundahl We do, but I'll let you love in ignorance if you don't want to do your own research.

You can't argue against them having language by saying they have a more basic level of language than humans. Of course they have a more basic language but language, is language and proves that it's not unique.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 "if you don't want to do your own research."

I did. That's what I'm telling you.

"a more basic level of language than humans."

No. A one level communication system and a three level communication system are not "more basic" or "more elaborate" they are functionally distinct.

There is no possible overlap.

There is a world, not just a degree, between having about as many messages as you can distinguish sounds and gestures and the messages helping you to convey emotions and what needs to be done, and having sounds with no message, combining to "words" or "endings" that are so to speak "message modules" but not yet full messages, and these then combined to full messages on the lines of predicative logic. Able to convey any subject of curiosity.

Jimmy Akin on Genesis 1—11 and the Magisterium

Genesis 6, Archaeological Confirmation · Jimmy Akin on Genesis 1—11 and the Magisterium · No, Evolution Isn't True and Isn't Catholic

What Does the Church Say About Early Genesis? | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 20 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwU7FLfIgqc

You do admit chapter 14 as fully historic in the normal sense?

Here is the thing for Deep Timers. IF the world is 100 000 or millions or billions of years old, the atmosphere is old and Carbon 14 is arguably in a kind of equilibrium.

So, c. 100 pmC. So, carbon dates should roughly match real dates.

However, in Genesis 14 you have an Asason Tamar inhabited when the chapter begins. It doesn't state that but also doesn't deny that the place was abandoned after the attack. However, Asason Tamar is En-Geddi, as we know from Chronicles (not looking it up, could it be II Chron. 20:2 or sth?).

However, the latest habitation in En Geddi prior to the Iron Age is carbon dated to ending in 3500 BC.

And if Abraham was born 2015 BC, given he was c. 80, the real time was 1935 BC.

3500 - 1935 = 1565 extra years, or the actual carbon 14 level had to be 0.5 to the power of (1565/5730), or c. 83 pmC.

If Abraham was born later, like an Exodus in the time of Amenhotep II would imply, even more extra years, even lower pmC, like 82 sth ...

"doesn't endorse either of these approaches"*

In the early world of PBC, there was no decision that would have gone against the idea of a video camera catching a good match for the wording in Genesis 1 to 11.

I'm obviously not counting 1992 under a non-Pope.

"in his preface"

Ah, so Joseph Ratzinger didn't write The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church but he wrote a preface to it.

How much does the preface endorse that horrible document?

It badmouths "Fundamentalism" horribly ....**

"at the time these documents had magisterial authority"

As in, no more, same documents?

That's not consistent with "sensum quem sancta mater ecclesia ... tenuit atque tenet" ...

[Letter to Cardinal-Archbishop] "Suhard"

Looking it up.***

"It is therefore impossible to deny or to affirm their historicity as a whole without unduly applying to them norms of a literary type under which they cannot be classed."

Sorry, but either one finds a loophole in the term "historicity as a whole" (like the historicity is not the same type) or one admits that Pius XII approved a faulty reply to part of the Church.

Or says, this means he was not Pope. That would make the election of Michael I one after at least 42 years of sedevacancy.

Tradition has always held Genesis to be a historical book.

Or, he was for the moment leaving the question open for discussion.

"overly enlarged the area of certainties that the faith can guarantee"

First, he shows he is not in continuity with that actual magisterium. Not Catholic. Not Pope.

Second, if anything, it overly diminished the area, left things open for discussion that could have and now after the discussions even more can now be affirmed with certainty.

"about the methods and limits of historical knowledge"

Well, more like what he affirmed as new understanding thereof is fake understanding thereof, the kind of faking of epistemology that Chesterton fought against (he had no Ratzinger to show him an example of such a sceptic pretending to wield cardinalic or papal dignity).

"where later Popes, such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI contradicted them"

Oh, they contradicted the Magisterial PBC in its binding judgements?

You see it as the judgements no longer being binding. I see it as they not being Catholics and therefore not Popes.

Just to mention, the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is by "early" PBC not explicitly tied to the Son of Zebedee, so Jean Colson is not falling afoul of it.

There is a big difference between early Church knowing two Johns and later conflating them, and early Church knowing one John and misattributing an authorship to him. The latter is condemned, the former, providentially, isn't. I say providentially since saying "John the Apostle" came close, but didn't hit it, as "Apostle" is not absolutely limited to "The Twelve" ... (where the only John is a Son of Zebedee).

"very abbreviated"

I'd agree. My reason to conclude that they were transmitted orally to Abraham, before he had a beduin caravan.

And that Abraham wrote down other things, and presumably these too.

You see, Sagen aus Österreich contains stories of an often historical or dubious nature, not meant as fiction, though in some cases, probably, tongue in cheek, and they are very abbreviated compared to stating such historical facts as articles or (when invented) as novellas.

The very abbreviated nature is a good signature for oral transmission. WHETHER Genesis 3 (for instance) was orally transmitted all the way from Adam to Abraham OR (for instance) Sarug possessed a book about it, was dispossessed of it by an idolatrous son and grandson (Nachor and Thare) and had to orally summarise what he could no longer verify in detail.

I'd go against the latter scenario, as it is possible or even probable that Thare didn't commit idolatry until Abraham was already 75 (i e he left Ur or Haran, whichever, on the spiritual death of his physical father).

"much more extensive sections"

Indeed. Suggesting these parts were originally written down by Abraham and the rest and came to Egypt when Jacob arrived, apart from what Joseph had already written himself in Egypt.

Clay tablets or papyri are insecure possessions of a lone traveller, can be stolen from a resident, but are a very secure possession, on par with tents and clothes, for a Beduin tribe. Which Abraham started to be head of in chapter 12.

"anthropomorphic language about God"

In Genesis up to chapter 3, Adam can walk with God and can describe a theophany, basically of pre-Incarnate Christ.

In Genesis 11, whoever saw what God was up to (perhaps in a dream) was also given a hint of the upcoming Incarnation of God.

"cosmic ramifications"

Not all of them. If Jubal (presumably recalled with additions and bad theology by Hindus as Krishna, though the actual Hebrew for that would be Kush) invented music instruments, that's a cultural, but not actually a cosmic ramification.

And if his half brother invented siderurgia along with chalcurgia, not only is the ramification non-cosmic, but to Abraham it would have been an incomprehensible fact with no ramification.

"from obscure ... to well known"

Indeed.

Genesis 1 to 11 spans pre-Flood events, with lower Palaeolithic giving us some, Mahabharata other, details. And the Neolithic, which had recently turned to Chalcolithic before Abraham was born, and the Upper Palaeolithic before Babel but after the Flood.

"history in the classic or modern sense"

OK. History comes in two genres. Thukydides and Mommsen. Got it. Every single other literary genre is "not fully historic" ...

I think this could be the last act of the PBC magisterium in a sense that parallels Deicide being the last act of the OT Cohen Gadol magisterium.

"non-historical if evaluated in terms of the modern methods"

By such evaluation, every single line of dialogue in a Classic work of history is non-historical, as the Classic view was that historians could not change what was said, but were free to present how it was said as they liked.

I would contend that modern standards, or at least the latitude about dialogue in Classic standards actually is met in Genesis 1 to 11. If we go on a few lines, here is sth nearly good:

The first duty in this matter incumbent on scientific exegesis consists in the careful study of all the problems literary, scientific, historical, cultural, and religious connected with these chapters; in the next place is required a close examination of the literary methods of the ancient oriental peoples, their psychology, their manner of expressing themselves and even their notion of historical truth the requisite, in a word, is to assemble without preformed judgements all the material of the palaeontological and historical, epigraphical and literary sciences.

Apart from "psychology" which is chimaeric about absent and therefore about past peoples, and "even their notion of historical truth" ... the investigations proposed are now very fruitful and precisely for Fundamentalists, for Creation Science, for Flood Geology.°

I've done my contributions°°, like verifying no fossil find anywhere has a whale above a plesiosaur. Or that Babel was Gobekli Tepe. Or that carbon dates match up very well, if the Biblical chronology is presumed (I'm using that of Roman Martyrology Christmas Day and presuming an Exodus ending the 13th Dynasty). Or that the breaks in generation overlaps from Genesis 3 to Abraham are comparable to from Trojan War to Homer.


"later ... pertain to history, but that it's expressed in a symbolic or figurative way"

1) Thank you for admitting this approach is indeed later than 1948.
2) I'd have appreciated you not using "the Church" as name for that entity making such statements.
3) I hope you'll be telling me in a moment how much later.

"we can't read ... without a careful story of how people thought and wrote at the time Genesis was composed"

This is a way more stupid thing than the 1948 document actually said.

1) Because it invalidates all reading prior to 1948 and some time past, which is contrary to "sensum quem ecclesia ... tenuit atque tenet"
2) Because it assumes the Hebrews and hagiographers had the same "mentality" to use the word in a loose way as idolatrous contemporaries
3) and because it assumes we can get closer to what the contemporaries did than guess-work, extrapolation from bragging (a certain Sayce on genealogies), and even wishful thinking ("we" wish the Flood wasn't supposed by Moses to have happened in actual fact as presented, so "we" assume a Babylonian writing about Enlil or Marduk and Tiamat didn't really mean it ... excluding my actual self from this "we" obviously).

hope of attaining

In other words, the need for an open mind is temporary.

Now, some would say, it is past, and it's results have confirmed the traditional (pre-PBC) readings. I'm of these.

adapted to the understanding of mankind at a lower stage of development

That one hasn't aged well.

---

* Text matching a video camera with a time machine and complete fiction.

** Ten years and some ago, I took him for the author of it, and wrote Apostatic Rejection of "Fundamentalism" in 1994

*** Found it cited last on this page:

Documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission Translated
July 7, 2022 | Admin
https://creationtheologyfellowship.org/2022/07/07/documents-of-the-pontifical-biblical-commission-translated/

° Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis (the latter unfortunately good friends with anti-Catholics, like Ray Comfort and Todd Friel) °° Creation vs. Evolution

Biblical Israel is the Church. Christian Palestinians are an Ethnically Israelite Part of Her

Is modern Israel a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? #theology #doctrine #christian #bible #christ
@DrJordanBCooper
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/l8Z8z4DjpNs

Apocalypse 11 says there is a time when earthly Jerusalem is spiritually Sodom and Egypt ... sounds like being fulfilled?

Alex Estrada

@alexestrada1788

Out of context and wrong!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@alexestrada1788 Egypt in Jewish tradition means "house of oppression", look how they treat Palestinians. Note that the official capital is not Tel Aviv, but Jerusalem, now.

Sodom to any BIblically literate person means the consummation of homosexual perverted desires, Jerusalem has a Pride Parade since 2002.

What is not in context? Oh, sure, Henoch and Elias haven't come yet, but I think they might be round the corner.

Answering Testify Cafe on Catholicism

Beginning a Video by Shad M. Brooks (To Prove I'm Not a Mormon) · Being Un-Catholic is Not a Solution · Answering Testify Cafe on Catholicism

Who Decides the Gospel That Saves: The Bible or Rome? | Cornerstone
Testify Cafe | 4 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsb9YtH5uI8

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

9:40 Constantine did NOT try to unify all religions.

Antipopes Prevost, Bergoglio, Ratzinger, Wojtyla, and you can arguably add Montini and perhaps Roncalli, do not represent the Catholic Church and do not represent the Constantinian peace.

Testify Cafe

@TestifyCafe

Hi there, thanks for sharing your views. Despite Constantine legalizing Christianity under his rule, he was still allowing religious tolerance of Roman pagan practices in order to unify the Roman Empire. Mixing Christian and pagan practices, even initially, was a dangerous melting pot for false teaching and is one point we bring up about why the RCC has adopted practices not found in Scripture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TestifyCafe "he was still allowing religious tolerance of Roman pagan practices"

Not in the Catholic Church.

He did allow the c. 50 % still pagans to continue being pagans.

"Mixing Christian and pagan practices"

False claim.

"the RCC has adopted practices not found in Scripture."

Witnessing about what Jesus did in your life (when it's not a medical miracle) or holding a sermon after the Bible readings of the faithful is not found in Scripture.

@TestifyCafe "religious tolerance of Roman pagan practices"

You do understand this means, he didn't close the temple of Delphic Apollo and things like that?

The one banning Paganism (or Pagan worship in public) was Theodosius.

"It was shut down during the persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire by Theodosius I in 381 AD."

Wikipedia on "Delphi" references Grecia. Guida d'Europa (in Italian). Milano: Touring Club Italiano. 1977. p. 126.

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10:09 Mike Gendron is also probably lying about his story:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Contacting Jane Gendron and Others About Mike Gendron's Uncle the Priest
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2024/10/contacting-jane-gendron-and-others.html

and Certainly wrong about the Deformation:

New blog on the kid: Claims by Gendron
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2024/10/claims-by-gendron.html

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10:26 For someone who had an uncle who was a Catholic priest, he's noticeably off on Catholic theology.

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10:40 And for someone who pretends to take up the cause of the Bible, he's noticeably off on Matthew 26:26.

Testify Cafe

In Matthew 26:26, Jesus was with the disciples, He had not died yet, so the elements are shown right from the start as symbolic. Jesus was not in the elements just like when Jesus says, "I am the door"(John 10:9), the Lord is not a physical door, He is the way to salvation. Jesus doesn’t need to be repeating His sacrifice for sin in the mass, as He proclaimed on the cross, “it is finished”, the debt of sin has been paid. (ref. Hebrews 9:25-26) John 6:56 in context also speaks of “the words I speak to you are spirit and life,” which indicates the elements of communion aren’t to be taken literally, but symbolic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TestifyCafe "Jesus was with the disciples,"

Yes.

"He had not died yet,"

Yes.

"so the elements are shown right from the start as symbolic."

No, does not follow.

All your arguments about there existing passages where Jesus uses metaphors fail, unless you can show how it follows from His not having died yet that the elements are symbolic.

By the way, before you try, how about reviewing not just John 6 (Lizzy Reezay has a funny but very apt video on the verb "trogo"), but also:

For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him
[John 19:36]

You see, the OT passage referred to isn't a Messianic prophecy, it's Mosaic law about how the Paschal Lamb is eaten. John just called Jesus our Paschal Lamb in a way featuring His being eaten as such.

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:10 He totally forgets the unity of Calvary and altar.

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:16 And as to his argument.

Do you have to accept Jesus in order to be forgiven? Because you arguably did so some time after 1968. You are younger than I and I was born that year.

But on Gendron's view, your sins were forgiven in AD 33 (or thereabout, some debate about the exact year).

Testify Cafe

God is not limited by time and space, the cross was ever planned from the beginning. Genesis 3:15 tells us what God will do through Christ on the cross, Jesus will crush Satan. Praise God for His plan and saving power. We are being put to death because of our breaking of God's law (1 John 3:4), and without the shedding of blood, sinless blood, there is no remission of sins (ref. Hebrews 9:22). Christ is our unique sinless Saviour, there can be no other, as we all have fallen short of His glory (ref. Romans 3:23).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TestifyCafe "God is not limited by time and space"

And therefore God can also make the sacrifice of Calvary present whereever a priest turns bread into His body and wine into His blood.

And God does precisely that:

For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
[1 Corinthians 11:26]

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:54 Come on!

Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
[1 Peter 3:21]

This doesn't exclude infant baptism.

And given the unity of Calvary and altar, this is not against the Catholic Mass:

Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit
[1 Peter 3:18]

If we taught the Mass were a different sacrifice from Calvary, you might have a point.

As to Romans 16, if Paul and Peter were next door on that occasion, that would have shown why the former didn't salute the latter. Equally if St. Paul wasn't yet aware Peter was in Rome, since St. Peter had for long been in Antioch (some presume he was the "Niger" mentioned in Act 13) and again if Peter actually arrived later (2 Peter 3 shows Peter wrote after many of Paul's epistles, probably wrote in Rome after Paul had written to Romans).

Currently, the true Pope, Michael II, is a married man (he was already married before his Episcopal consecration).

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

12:16 Where in the Bible is either believer or duties of one defined as to include "witness what Christ has done in his life"?

Testify Cafe

"And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death." Revelation 12:10

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TestifyCafe Their testimony was arguably not and was certainly not defined as being "what Christ had done in their lives" ... try again.

More probably "Christ is risen" or "Christ is King" or "I can't deny He rules and I dare not disobey Him just for you guys"

@TestifyCafe Or, "I'm the King's loyal servant, but God's first" (St. Thomas More on the scaffold)

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

12:32 Misrepresentation.

Baptism, belief, freedom from other excommunications than for heresy and apostasy as well. Not just baptism.

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

13:19 The sin of Adam was, given his freedom from original sin up to committing it, a mortal sin.

We teach that mortal sins do cause death.

Here is Bible for venial sins:

For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. He is able also with a bridle to lead about the whole body
[James 3:2]

A voluntary direct breaking of God's undoubted command cannot be venial.

St. James is talking of justified persons, not of sinners who need to repent and get right with God.

Testify Cafe

The payment for sin is always death (Romans 6:23), there are no degrees of sin, but praise God, Jesus can deliver us from the power of sin and death by His atonement on the cross.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TestifyCafe "The payment for sin is always death"

St. Paul is talking of mortal sin and also of original sin.

"there are no degrees of sin"

That's not what St. James said what I just quoted. See also:

He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask.
[1 John 5:16]

So, the argument "there are no degrees of sin" fails.

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

13:42 One cannot die "in" venial sin, it's not a state, one can die "with" venial sins not yet fully forgiven.

Testify Cafe

The Bible says we must be born again (John 3:3) in order to have a new heart and see God. We all die in sin unless they are covered by Jesus' atonement. "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." - Romans 8:1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TestifyCafe Justified and born again are synonyms.

They are opposed to original sin and to mortal sins, which are a state.

You can die in mortal sin, and if you do, you go to Hell ... unless God raises you to give you a second chance, it's eternal.

Atonement doesn't just cover, it vivifies. Christ is not just a camouflage before the Father, He's alive inside the justified person.

That's why their good deeds have merit, because it's ultimately the merits of Jesus.

Eph 2:8—10 makes it clear this happens once we are justified, and nothing we do before justification could earn us justification.

So, venial sins don't take away justification, that's why they are not a state and you cannot die "in" venial sin. If the moment you die you have venial sins, but no mortal and not original sin, you die in Christ and not "in sin."

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

13:44, have you ever read this one?

If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
[1 Corinthians 3:15]

---

Hans-Georg Lundahl

14:01 Indulgence for almsgiving:

For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness
[Tobias (Tobit) 4:11]

For sacrifices of the OT and obviously even more so for the one of the NT:

And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins
[2 Machabees 12:43-46]

Testify Cafe

Helping others is good, but God judges the motive of our hearts. Thinking we will gain deliverance from sin from doing a good deed is not the heart of the Lord and says our offering could even come close to His sacrifice on the cross. Only Jesus is worthy of making a once for all offering for sin on the cross:

“Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life”
- Psalm 49:7

We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
- Isaiah 64:6

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TestifyCafe "Thinking we will gain deliverance from sin from doing a good deed is not the heart of the Lord"

Would you mind trying to substantiate that?

The arguments you offered are not about alms leading us to an occasion of repentance and therefore to the Cross or about blotting out venial sins while you are already justified by the Cross, they are about the parodic idea that alms were to deliver us from sin instead of the Cross, which is absolutely not how we view alms or other indulgenced deeds.

Sharing on Baptism and on the Old Covenant

Jesus' Descent Into Hell & The Baptism Of The Good Thief
vaticancatholic.com | 11 June 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBpm_ipT9Sk

If Anyone Thought that "Leo XIV" was the Good Response to Trump ...

A Good Reason to Not be National Socialist, an Even Better One Not to be Communist, and an Excellent One to Make Peace with God · The World is Going to Hell "in a Handbasket" · If Anyone Thought that "Leo XIV" was the Good Response to Trump ...

Vatican Doctrine Chief Declares Catholic Teaching A Terrible Injustice
Return To Tradition | 14.IV.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz33cZc8rRs

When Popes Drop Jesus and Presidents Play Messiah?
Fr. Jason Charron | 13 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brlG4mPZuz0

Genesis 6, Archaeological Confirmation

Genesis 6, Archaeological Confirmation · Jimmy Akin on Genesis 1—11 and the Magisterium · No, Evolution Isn't True and Isn't Catholic

They Ate Their Children Inside the Oldest Cave in Europe
Buried Earth | 27 March 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOmOOLbATgM

And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth, He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth
Genesis 6:11-13