Letter #1
To John :
[Re: John 10:27-29]
V.27: My sheep
listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. V.28: I give
them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch
them out of my hand. V.29: My Father, who has given them to me,
is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's
hand." - JOHN 10:27-29. I believe that the above verses
clearly propound the eternal security of the believer. Charles
mentioned to me that you take verse 27 as a qualifier for verses
28 & 29. In other words, verses 28 & 29 apply only to the
TRUE sheep : those who get saved but then fall away and lose
their salvation were never really God's sheep. My question to you
then is 'what are they then?' You will find yourself having to
invent a term or classification for such outside of what
Scripture says. Scripture only speaks of God's children as being
sheep (dependance on Him, as a sheep is to the Shepherd)
-Leonard
P.S. I thought
that this would be a convenient means for a few of us to exchange
views.
Letter #2
Nice to meet you,
Leonard. Peace of Christ be with you. I believe your response is
not entirely logical. I agree with you that Jesus calls his
followers 'sheep', and therefore I do not need to invent a term
or classification outside of Scripture. In these verses, Jesus
says that his sheep hear his voice, and it is to his sheep that
he gives eternal life. The question of losing one's salvation
comes when one asks the inevitable question: What if I do not
listen to His voice? Does Jesus' teaching here secure eternal
life for me now? The answer of course is no - you are not one of
His sheep since you did not, by definition, listen to His voice.
Regards,
John
Letter #3
My Brother John,
I think I have to
clarify something...the issue here is that by saying the person
is SAVED implies he became a SHEEP. And if he is a sheep, it is
impossible for him to be ejected from the Father's hand. So
you'll say If he loses his salvation, he couldn't have been a
sheep. So then, if he was not a sheep when he was saved, then
what was he? You can't say that he was a sheep but then turned
into a goat because the moment at which he was a sheep, our
verses indicate he's eternally secure. Your response doesn't make
sense, and I quote you "What if I do not listen to His
voice?". Can you say that you listen to the Shepherd at
every point in every day? If not, then by your own reasoning you
could get lost some afternoon when you have a bad day at work and
an angry thought enters your head! The 'listening' here is a
general characterization of the Christian - we live by God's
Word.
- Leonard
Letter #4
Leonard, I think
we need to set some parameters for our discussion since I don't
think we will be able to clear up our difference without some
kind of structure for debate. (Our predecessors have taken nearly
5 centuries and still haven't been able to do it!!!). Before I
suggest some parameters for our discussion, however, I would like
to address some of your comments you made in your last e-mail.
You stated that it is not possible for a sheep to become a goat,
because once you have become a sheep of the Lord, your salvation
is eternally secured. I do not believe that the passage in
question is suggesting that you cannot fall away from being a
follower of Jesus. Many former Christians, for instance, are now
the greatest enemies of Christianity - they once accepted Christ,
but now they reject Him. Jesus is granting eternal salvation to
His sheep. His sheep are those who listen to His voice. Jesus
does not say 'those who have listened', but those who listen.
Jesus is speaking in the present and future tense: If you stop
listening to His voice, then you cease to be one of His sheep. No
where in the passage does Jesus say or even imply that 'once you
have accepted me at one point in your life, your salvation is
assured'. Far from it - in fact, He is very clear in many Gospel
parables that salvation is secured only in persevering in His
teachings. (Please read Matthew 7:15-27). People dressed in
'sheep's clothing', that is, people who profess something but
don't act on their beliefs are hypocrites. As you know, Jesus did
not have much respect for hypocrites.
Your second
argument suggests that it would be ridiculous to believe that our
salvation could be lost if we had 'a bad day at work'. St. John
can help us clear up this question: "If any one sees his
brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and
God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to
death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he
should make request for this." (1 John 5:16). Here, holy
scripture is saying that there are sins leading to death (what
Catholics call 'mortal sins') which are serious i.e. murder,
sexual sins, etc. There are also sins, called 'venial sins',
which are less serious and do not condemn you to hell i.e. being
rude to someone. Hence, the fact that you are rude to someone at
work will not cause your eternal loss, but if you were to kill
someone at work - and not repent of it - your salvation is
certainly in grave doubt. Let us back up, though. Let us define
exactly what are positions are.
The Catholic
position is that your salvation is assured only if you persevere
in doing God's will. God judges how you have obeyed His
commandments through your whole life once you have become a child
of God. Hence, salvation is granted by Faith in Christ and the
works you perform (as evidence of your love and fidelity to Him).
In other words, simply agreeing to a number of religious
propositions such as 'accepting Jesus as you personal Lord and
Saviour' is not enough. One must do what Jesus said to do in
order to truly 'believe' in Him.
The Protestant
position, at least as it was espoused by Luther, is that your
salvation is by 'faith alone' (sola fide). Salvation is assured
at a point in time once you 'accept Jesus as your personal Lord
and Saviour.' Nothing you do afterwards can have any effect on
your salvation. (Please correct my understanding if it is
incorrect.)
Also, in order to
accurately debate a particular topic, I think we would both agree
that we need the entirety of scripture and not just one passage.
One may be able to take one Bible passage out of context and come
to an entirely opposite conclusion from the truth. (Please note
that I will restrict my scriptural references to what Luther
believed was the Bible. The Catholic Bible has seven more Old
Testament books.)
In the discussions
that follow, I will be putting forward Scriptural passages which
will defend my position. I look forward to debating these issues
with you.
Regards,
John
Letter #5
John,
Charles told me
you believed you could be saved and then lost. This is evidently
not the case. Now that that has been cleared up, we can start
afresh. He tells me that you believe a man is saved through a
process of good living, and can't know he is saved until he dies.
Regarding your reply : 1) I'm glad you'll be restricting yourself
to "what Luther believed was the Bible" (read the
inspired Word) since the Catholic "Apochrypha" (which
means "of doubtful origin") or any add-ons by a Pope,
are refuse. (As an aside, Luther spoke disrespectfully of
Hebrews, James, Jude, and = Revelation, and set them apart at the
end of his version. He lost the blessing those Scriptures would
have provided to him. Similarily, accepting man's teachings as
Scirpture - effectively adding to Scripture is a curse) 2) Yes, I
agree with Luther's view of salvation : "saved by faith
alone, but not by faith that is alone". 3) Your point that
Jesus never says "once you have accepted me at one point in
your life, your salvation is assured" also applies to you :
where does He ever say " you have to earn your salvation
through a process of good living". 4) I agree - God hates
hypocracy. 5) Regarding your quotation of 1 John 5:16...The
operative word here is 'brother'. This is someone in the family
of God. Its not spiritual death referred to here, but physical.
6) The definition of 'venial' and 'mortal' sins,and their
consequences, should be discarded from our discussion as they're
of Roman Catholic origin and not found in Scripture. Scripture
clearly states ALL Sin is rebellion against God. "sin is
lawlessness" -1 John 3:4 7) Regarding someone who says they
were a Christian but went on to deny his Lord : they may not have
been saved at all : "A sow that is washed goes back to her
wallowing in the mud" 2 Peter2:22. The significance of
"being washed" is the outward appearance of being
regenerate (i.e = Christian lifestyle from new birth), yet not
being real, goes back to = the lifestyle it once led. In nature,
it was always a pig. 8) Salvation by faith is not "simply
agreeing to a number of religious propositions such as 'accepting
Jesus as you personal Lord and Saviour'" as you claim I
believe. It is "believe ON the Lord Jesus Christ". In
other words, the only hope I could have ever had to be saved from
my sins and their due penalty is Jesus's blood - I cling to Him
as my hope. This will affect my lifestyle.
9) I think what is
clear John, is that you don't possess any knowledge of what the
Scriptures teach concerning regeneration : being born again,
having the NEW nature, losing the OLD nature only when entering
eternity, being sealed with the Holy Spirit.
10) How do you
expain why the Lord referred to His disciples as follows...
"Do not be afraid little flock, for your Father has been
pleased to give you the kingdom." (Luke12:32). He was
telling them not to fear : since they knew they were sheep, and
were a part of the Shepherd-King's kingdom, they were to enjoy
the fact they were saved.
11) Lets both try
to be concise - avoiding long running paragraphs in which the key
points are lost.
- Leonard
Letter #6
Dear Leonard,
I think we need to
clear up some misunderstandings before we can proceed. Firstly, I
do not believe, nor did I ever relate to Charles, that Catholics
believe that they are saved by good works or, as you put it,
"good living". The Catholic Church has never held that
belief - ever. The Church has been faithful to Scripture by
teaching that Faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. Both
Protestants and Catholics believe this. So the question is not
the necessity of Faith, but rather the necessity of works. In the
course of our future discussions, I will show conclusively that
works (along with faith) are necessary for salvation. I will also
conclusively show that a person can lose his salvation if he does
not obey our Lord's commands. I propose to begin with the Gospels
and then proceed from there. If this is unacceptable to you,
please let me know. (I will commence to do so later in this
letter).
Regarding your
counter-reply (referring to your numbered points):
1) With regard to
the Bible, you choose to use the word 'Apocrypha' in order to
disregard these books as inspired. Of course, I reject the title
that Protestants have imputed to these deuterocanonical books,
and therefore I do accept them as inspired. You mentioned that
the Pope 'added them on'. This is false. It was Luther who
rejected these books because it did not mesh with his rejection
of Purgatory and praying for the dead, which these books support.
These books were already considered inspired by the Church even
before Luther. The Council of Trent merely re-affirmed the
canonicity of these books. We will return to this question later
on, but I suggest you ponder a few fundamental questions: Where
do you think we got the Bible in the first place? Did it fall
from heaven? How do you know that all of the books of Scripture
are inspired and how do you know that there are none missing? Who
has the authority to say what is inspired and what is not?
Finally, since Luther accepted all of the New Testament books, he
was obviously accepting books that were already considered
inspired. Question: on whose authority was he relying on to say
they were inspired? (You mentioned that adding to Scripture would
cause a curse. Well, so does subtracting from Scripture (Cf.
Revelation 22:19)) Again, we will discuss in more depth after
addressing the question of salvation.
2) I am having a
difficult time understanding your position. You say that you
believe in 'sola fide' (faith alone), yet you seem to qualify
this by saying 'not by faith that is alone'. Does this mean that
something must accompany faith for salvation i.e. works?
5) This passage is
clearly to be understood as spiritual death, not physical death
as you maintain.
"If any one
sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall
ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not
leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say
that he should make request for this." (1 John 5:16)
Note that St. John
says 'God will give him life'. Obviously, this statement does not
mean physical life since the person is already physically alive.
Since the price of all sin is indeed physical death, the fact
that St. John says there is a sin 'not leading to death' suggests
that his words are not to be understood in the physical sense
(otherwise, he would be contradicting Scripture itself). His
words are, therefore, clearly to be understood in the spiritual
realm.
6) The Church
calls serious sins 'mortal' and non-serious sins 'venial' since
it wishes to distinguish the nature of sins. The fact that the
words 'mortal' and 'venial' are not in the Bible is irrelevant,
since neither is the word 'Trinity'. The important thing to
realize is that there is a difference between sins which lead to
death and sins which do not. You would be very hard-pressed, for
instance, to argue that being rude to someone held the same moral
weight as murder. If you do, then I would suggest that you are
betraying your own sense of justice. If it bothers you so much, I
will refrain from using these words, but I will not admit that
God sees all sin in the same light.
7) I don't know if
you realize this, but you have just admitted the weakness of your
position. You are effectively saying that if a believer
backslides into sin or denial, then he really wasn't a believer
to begin with. Are you suggesting that a person, who in Year 1
'accepts Jesus as His personal Lord and Saviour' but then in year
10 abandons his faith, really didn't have faith to begin with?
The logical inference here is that when the person made his
profession of faith in year 1, he must not have been sincere
since, by your own admission, his salvation is eternally secure.
I, however, believe that someone can be sincere in his belief at
the beginning, but then simply fall into apostasy. If you,
yourself, were to fall into apostasy, you would be admitting that
your Faith in Christ was not sincere to begin with. Are you
prepared to accept this? Are you prepared to say that your Faith
in Christ now is not sincere?
3) You have asked
me to show you where Jesus teaches "you have to earn your
salvation through a process of good living". I intend to do
just that - please note the following passages from Matthew (I
have only read the first 14 chapters of Matthew, and I have
already found a multitude of passages which support the Catholic
view of 'faith and works'):
- Matthew 3:8-10 -
note the necessity of bringing forth 'fruit' which is good works.
- Matthew 5:11-12
- your reward is great in heaven only if you persevere.
- Matthew 5:30 -
note that Our Lord is speaking to believers, and He still warns
of the consequences of sin.
- Matthew 6:20-21
- what is the point to 'storing up treasures' (i.e. good works)
if it did not impact on your salvation?
- Matthew 7:19 -
the consequences of not bearing good fruit (i.e. good works) are
clear.
- Matthew 7:21-27
- only the one who does the will of God enters heaven. Not
everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord...' will enter the kingdom. You
must prove you are a disciple of Jesus before you can enter
heaven. Notice too that in v.24 Our Lord makes it clear that his
followers must ACT on his words in order to enjoy eternal life.
This is contrasted with v.26 where the 'follower' who did NOT ACT
on His words is not fit for heaven.
- Matthew 10:22 -
Again, Our Lord insists that it is the one who 'endures to the
end' who will be saved.
- Matthew 10:38-39
- Jesus says that you must carry your cross in order to be worthy
of Him. If you do not carry your cross (i.e. accept the
sufferings that come your way, do good works), then you are not
going to enter heaven. - Matthew 13:1-9,18-23 - Please pay close
attention to v.20 and v.21 which suggest that the one who
initially 'accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Saviour' but
does not continue, has lost his eternal salvation.
P.S. You mentioned
in your first letter that "Scripture only speaks of God's
children as being sheep." That is not entirely true - see
Matthew 9:36 and Matthew 10:6
Regards,
John
----------------
Leonard, this the
remainder of my response to points 8-11, which were lost in the
last e-mail.
8) Since you say
your belief in Jesus 'will affect your lifestyle', are you
suggesting that your lifestyle choices will affect your
salvation? If you are, then you cannot say that your salvation is
secure. Yet, if you are not, then you are saying that your future
behaviour has no bearing on your salvation. Please clarify.
10) First of all,
any passage must be taken in its context with all of scripture
considered. From the passage you have cited, you presume to
believe that Jesus has given you eternal life UNCONDITIONALLY
because of your confessional faith. Jesus does indeed say that
the Father is pleased to give us the kingdom, yet, as the
REMAINDER of His teachings in the chapter quickly remind us, He
does not say that we have it if we mock our 'faith' by serious
sin. Nevertheless, He gives us hope IF we abide in His love and
keep His commandments (Cf. John 15:10).
Therefore, to
appreciate what Our Lord means, it is necessary to read the rest
of the Chapter, in particular Luke 12:33-46. Notice in v.33-35,
Jesus links good works with eternal glory. Regarding v.36-40, Our
Lord tells His disciples to 'be ready'(v. 40). The inevitable
question that arises is: Why does Our Lord want us to 'be ready',
if as you suggest, we are already eternally secure of salvation?
(This begs the question: What if we are not ready?) In v.39, He
admits that salvation would be too easy if people knew when He
would come again since many 'believers' would be on their best
behaviour around that time. This necessarily implies that time
and perseverance do in fact matter in salvation (v.38). In
v.42-44, Jesus says that the 'faithful and sensible servant' is
the one who DOES His will, and rewards Him by 'putting Him in
charge of all His possessions' - an allusion to the Kingdom.
Finally, in v.45-46, the heavy consequences of sinning grievously
are stated. Please also pay close attention to the last part of
v. 46 "and a assign him a place with the UNBELIEVERS".
Our Lord was therefore speaking to BELIEVERS (v.41) when He
warned of the grave consequences earlier in the verse. Therefore,
they COULD lose their salvation.
(As an aside,
recall that you said that there is no distinction between a
serious sin and less serious sin in God's eyes. ("Scripture
clearly states ALL Sin is rebellion against God."). Compare
the punishment Jesus gives to the servant who beat his servants
and got drunk (v.45) to the servant who 'coasted'(v.47). Jesus
condemns the first with the unbelievers i.e. hell, while only
giving lashes to the second (and those who did not know His will)
i.e. purgatory...But this is another question which we may later
explore.)
Therefore, in
conclusion, Luke 12:32 gives eternal salvation only to the one
who is 'ready.'
11) I think you
will agree that such a topic cannot really be restricted to a few
lines if we want to have a meaningful discussion. I will,
however, try to limit my responses in the future.
Regards,
John
Letter #7
Dear John,
I've read a
document that Charles had photocopied for me entitled "What
Catholics really believe" (chapter 36) to gain an
unequivocal statement as to what you believe. Before I reply to
your latest E-mail, I would like to state my thoughts regarding
some statements in this document : The document states that we
are saved "Only by God's grace, completely unmerited by
works, is one saved." I agree with this. It also states that
"Authentic, saving faith is always manifested in good
works." I agree with this with the following qualification
in the understanding of the word 'faith'. When the Bible talks
about 'faith', it isn't merely that one makes the assertion that
Christ existed and that He died for us. There is sufficient
evidence historically for this. No, its the turning to and
"clinging" to Christ for one's eternal destiny that is
referred to. When THIS faith is exhibited, fruit for God is now
possible in one's life. Now the problem: this document states
that one's saving faith must be preserved by good works - they
"keep us in a state of grace, and in that way they
contribute to our salvation". And that we can lose our
salvation : "We lose our salvation when we fall into serious
sin." I do not agree with this. I will discuss this later in
this E-mail. In your last E-mail you listed a number of verses
which you were using to show "you have to earn your
salvation through a process of good living". This is not
what these verses are saying at all. The verses you listed from
Matthew's Gospel are various statements as to how God views man's
responsibility, as His creature, to do good. However, you have
inferred that we must therefore earn our salvation by being good.
The truth is that we were never able to live up to God's standard
- see Rom 3:20. It's all by grace - see Rom 1:17. Now I know that
the Catholic belief would seem to agree with this. But the truth
is it doesn't : being under Grace means I am done with any effort
of my own - period. I will go over your verses now and then come
back to this. I will give what I believe to be the correct
understanding of these verses...
1) Matthew 3:8-10
- note the necessity of bringing forth 'fruit' which is good
works. ----> speaking to Jews : they believed that they were
accepted by God because of their birth, and their repentance was
therefore not real.
2) Matthew 5:11-12
- your reward is great in heaven only if you persevere. ---->
this passage declares that our reward will be great for such
faithfulness. - Matthew 5:30 - note that Our Lord is speaking to
believers, and He still warns of the consequences of sin.
---->Showing how much we should hate sin. Nothing to do how we
get saved.
3) Matthew 6:20-21
- what is the point to 'storing up treasures' (i.e. good works)
if it did not impact on your salvation? ----> This is
directing our hearts toward heaven. Being heavenly minded means
we will desire to live for God down here, knowing that we will be
rewarded for faithful service. Nothing to do how we get saved.
4) Matthew 7:19 -
the consequences of not bearing good fruit (i.e. good works) are
clear. ----> Read vs. 15 and realize this is related to false
prophets : they do not produce good works. Nothing to do how we
get saved.
5) Matthew 7:21-27
- only the one who does the will of God enters heaven. Not
everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord...' will enter the kingdom. You
must prove you are a disciple of Jesus before you can enter
heaven. Notice too that in v.24 Our Lord makes it clear that his
followers must ACT on his words in order to enjoy eternal life.
This is contrasted with v.26 where the 'follower' who did NOT ACT
on His words is not fit for heaven. ----> The point here is
there will be many who will appear to be believers - even casting
out demons in the name of Christ! - but never really trusted in
His blood. Regarding your statement above that we must prove you
are a disciple of Jesus, read the verse 2 Tim 2:19 : "The
Lord knows those that are His". The contrast between the two
houses illustrate the difference between one who trusts in the
Lord (he has believed the Lords words) and the one who didn't
listen.
6) Matthew 10:22 -
Again, Our Lord insists that it is the one who 'endures to the
end' who will be saved. ----> You cannot understand this verse
if you remove it from the context. See verse 23. It must be
understood that the Lord is speaking to His disciples as Jews.
This passage is speaking to the Jews in the end times - after
Christians are taken home to be with the Lord as in 1 Thes
4:16-17. Verses 17 & 18 of Matthew 10 refer to synagogues and
Gentiles - clearly Jewish references.
7) Matthew
10:38-39 - Jesus says that you must carry your cross in order to
be worthy of Him. If you do not carry your cross (i.e. accept the
sufferings that come your way, do good works), then you are not
going to enter heaven. ----> Once again, this passage is
speaking to the Jew in the end times. In principle, the cross
separates us from this world -see Gal 6:14. I believe that we
should live as separate from this world - see 1 John 2:15 "
Do not love the world".
8) Matthew
13:1-9,18-23 - Please pay close attention to v.20 and v.21 which
suggest that the one who initially 'accepts Jesus as his personal
Lord and Saviour' but does not continue, has lost his eternal
salvation. ----> The fact that "he had no root"
shows that his profession of faith wasn't real : it only appeared
that it was. It is says of him "it sprang up quickly"
indicating it was merely outward appearance without any real
exercise of soul.
Now for a few
thoughts I have regarding salvation... I sense that the position
Roman Catholics hold concerning salvation does not take into
consideration the doctrine of the Old and New natures. The idea
behind a "nature" is in describing the source of a
behaviour. For instance, a dog behaves as a dog and not a cat
because it has a dog's nature. And vice-versa. The Old nature in
man, also referred to as the sinful nature and the flesh, is what
we are born with as members of Adam's race. The New nature,
however, is conferred to a man when he believes on the Lord Jesus
Christ as his Saviour, and thus becomes born again. Man without
the New nature bares absolutely no fruit for God. But man with
the New nature can bare fruit for God, but he does not lose the
Old nature until he gets to heaven. This is why we need someone
"...who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus
Christ..." -1John2:1. Even though we are born of God, we
still sin because of our failing. But God doesn't write us off
when we sin - His Son acts as an Advocate for us. Since "He
is the atoning sacrifice for our sins" - 1John2:2, all of
our sins have been paid for. So then, being born again, and all
our sins paid for, how can we lose our salvation? Christ paid for
ALL our sins because we are absolutely helpless before an
infinitely holy God.
I would like to
continue, but its better to keep our replies as brief as possible
or else we'll be losing each other with the multitude of points.
So I'll close by adding that I regret that the tone of our
previous correspondence was at some times abrasive. Although I
hate what I believe to be departure from the truth in the
Catholic teachings, I should be sensitive to your personal
beliefs and convictions. It was frustrating having Charles
questioning much of his Christian Evangelical beliefs because of
his lack of education in the Word. I pray that our continued
discussions will be used by God for blessing on Charles and the
both of us, as we study His Word and discern His will by the Holy
Spirit.
- Leonard
Letter #8
Good day, Leonard
Thank you for
responding to my last e-mail. I agree that we should try our best
to continue our dialogue in Christian charity and understanding.
I apologize for any offense I may have taken against you.
Perhaps, Charles can act as a 'check' so we don't fall into that
trap again.
1) You do not
agree that we lose our salvation when we fall into serious sin.
Serious sin, is by definition, a rejection of God. When we reject
God, we reject Christ's promise of eternal salvation. Just as the
Holy Spirit will not enter a person uninvited so too he will not
remain in Him if rejected. The alternative, and what your belief
implicitly holds, is that God 'forces' himself on us even if we
don't want His Love. This belief therefore leads to the denial of
free will.
2) I agree with
you that we are unable to obtain salvation by our own merits.
That IS the Catholic position. The question, therefore, is not if
we need God's help, but rather HOW we allow God to save us. I
think you have brought up a good point when you speak of 'grace'.
You say that grace saves you without any effort on you own -
'period'. The word 'grace' for Roman Catholics is defined
"as any divine assistance given to persons in order to
advance them toward their supernatural destiny of fellowship with
God. In its proper sense, grace transforms a person's nature so
that it can function at an entirely new interpersonal level,
where the object of knowledge and love is none other than God
Himself and where other persons are known and loved in God. This
new level of existence and activity is properly supernatural: it
involves the transformation and elevation of the natural states
and capacities of the creaturely person." (Catholic
Encyclopedia). Thus, for Catholics, 'grace' means assistance not
assurance. Incidentally, you may be interested to know that the
doctrine of the necessity of grace for salvation was formulated
by St. Augustine against Pelagianism, a fourth century heresy
which held that human beings can take the initial steps toward
salvation and perform good actions by their own efforts.
My responses to
your comments on some passages:
1) Matthew 3:8-10:
St. John the Baptist is not speaking just to the Pharisees. He is
speaking to all people who presume to profess the truth, and do
not produce the fruits of that profession. He does not deny the
Pharisees their birthright, but rather chastises them for their
hypocrisy. Thus, the Baptist uses the Pharisees as an example of
what not to be. His message of repentance goes out to all those
are like the Pharisees. What is the alternative? That John the
Baptist required repentance of the Pharisees, and not people who
are like the Pharisees? Does this make sense?
2) Matthew 5:30:
Our Lord is speaking to all those who wish to follow Him. When He
says that it is better take drastic action to avoid sin rather
than be thrown into hell, is He not warning of the consequences
of serious sin? Does this not impact your salvation? Is he saying
'Don't worry about sin because you are already saved?' No, Jesus
is not saying that at all. In fact, He gives the very sobering
reality of the deadly consequences of sin by commanding us to
take every available means (symbolized by cutting off our hands)
to avoid it. He wanted us to avoid it BECAUSE of eternal loss.
4) Matthew 7:19:
Are you suggesting that Jesus was speaking only to a restricted
view of 'prophet' (i.e. Prophets with a capital 'P')? Are you
saying that Jesus is condemning only false prophets because of
their lack of works while everyone else is exempt from good
works? This is not very logical nor very just. Jesus'
commandments apply to everyone equally. A false prophet is
necessarily anyone who professes one thing on the outside, but is
really something else inside. He tells us that we 'will know them
by their fruits'; that is, their works, and He gives the warning
to those who think they can go through life coasting: "EVERY
tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into
the fire." This does indeed impact our salvation.
5) Matthew
7:21-27: You are correct is saying that the difference between
the two houses is that one trusted in the Lord and the other did
not. However, you did not follow that observation to its logical
conclusion. Read and compare closely v.24 and v.26. Note that
both men 'heard' the word, but ONLY the one who ACTED on it did
not fall.
6) Matthew 10:22:
Jesus' words are for His disciples for all time. Your
interpretation of this verse is biased toward you theory of a
'rapture'. There is no reason to believe that Jesus is speaking
to only those Jews in the end times. You have assigned a
restriction that is not evident in the passage. Rather, it is
clear and consistent with other biblical passages that we must
endure, carry our cross and proclaim the Gospel. This is not an
suggestion but a commandment for salvation. Read Matthew 9:62.
7) Matthew
10:38-39: Again, you are restricting this passage to apply to the
Jews in the end times. You are not admitting what is clear from
scripture: to follow Jesus is to accept the crosses He gives us.
Remember a disciple is not greater than his master. (Cf. Matthew
10:24)
8) Matthew 13:1-9,
18-23:
Leonard, read v.
21 carefully: "But he has root and lasts only for a time.
When some tribulation or perseverance comes because of the word,
he immediately falls away." Our Lord is using the word
"root" to express the idea of stability through tough
times. The person in this passage has no 'root' and therefore
'fell away'. In other words, he had no root; that is, no real
faith BECAUSE he failed to endure the persecutions that came as a
result of being a follower of Jesus. It is quite apparent to me,
especially in light of v.23, that the one who endures and
produces fruit (through faith, always) is indeed the one who
gains eternal life (Cf. Matthew 7:19). On the other hand, the one
who 'falls away' is not promised eternal life.
But let us back
up. You said "the fact that he had 'no root' shows that his
profession of faith wasn't real." You further described the
individual as lacking "any real exercise of the soul."
You will no doubt return to your original position which
questioned whether the person had faith to begin with. Are you
still holding to this position?
On the remainder
of your comments...
I agree with your
discussion of the 'new nature'. However, I disagree with you
characterization of 'God writing us off'. First of all, God does
not 'write us off.' WE 'write ourselves off'. Secondly, the
atoning sacrifice of Christ does not apply to the believer if he
keeps 'crucifying Christ' (Cf. Hebrews 6:6), otherwise what would
be the need for repentance? Works is the fruit of a sincere
repentance (Cf. Luke 6:44). Repentance is an absolute requirement
for forgiveness. (Cf. Luke 17:3). Forgiveness is required for
salvation (Cf. Matthew 18:34-35). Therefore, works is required
for salvation (Cf. Luke 10:26-36). Indeed, Leonard, all of our
sins have been paid for (Cf. Romans 6:10), but first we need to
repent in order to be forgiven (Cf. Acts 2:38 - a confessional
faith was not enough; there had to be repentance).
By the way, I
would like your comments on 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. I would
especially like you to explain how v.27 reconciles with your view
of guaranteed salvation.
Hope to hear from
you soon...
John
Letter #9
In our Bible study
last night, we took up Chapter 9 of 1 Corinthians. Chuck told us
that verses 24-27 was a passage which the two of you were
discussing, and that you wanted to know what we thought it meant.
I'll start by saying that this passage is a difficult one which
can be misunderstood - as Peter says in 2 Peter 3 regarding
Paul's letters "His letters contain some things that are
hard to understand..." The passage presents a prize -
eternal life. We should run in a way which gains us the prize.
This is similar to Philippians "Work out your salvation with
fear and trembling". Now we both will agree that we are
saved by Grace through Faith and not Works - as Eph 2:8,9 states.
So the meaning behind what Paul says isn't that we must earn our
salvation, but that the character of our Christian life should be
fruitful. The danger in vs 27 is a man who goes through all the
motions yet is himself reprobate. This is the summary :
The prize =
eternal life (the eternal crown verses the temporal crown).
Competing in the
games (running in the race) = professing to be a Believer
Running the race =
living the Christian life
In order to run
the race, it is necessary to train.
Training = Growing
in the knowledge of Christ.
The danger of
vs.27 : if someone isn't training (beating the body) = he may not
be a true Believer.
Thus, this false
Believer could have even preached Christ to others but he himself
was without Him. This is reminiscent of Balaam of the Old
Testament, and of Charles Templeton in more recent times.
- Leonard
Letter #10
Leonard, thank you
for responding to my query regarding 1 Corinthians 9:27. I would
like, however, to clarify a few points you brought up before
discussing this passage.
You stated that
'we both agree that we are saved by Grace through Faith and not
Works'. I cannot agree with your assertion as you understand it.
The Catholic and, I believe, biblical view is that justification
is based on a fiduciary faith (as you understand faith to mean)
AND 'works of faith'. As I have indicated to you, I am preparing
a thesis on the question of justification, comparing the
Protestant and the Catholic view on this subject. One of the
central questions in this debate is what St. Paul means by
'Faith'. I maintain that St. Paul means Faith to be a working
faith (Cf. Galatians 5:6; Hebrews 11:7-29) and an obedient faith
(Cf. Romans 1:5, 16:26), not a faith that is dead without works
(Cf. James 2:17). Thus, Ephesians 2:8-9 could be very well
understood in this light IF you don't stop at verse 9, but
continue reading to the next verse.
"For by grace
you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it
is the gift of God; not as a result works, that no one should
boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for
good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in
them." (Ephesians 2:8-10)
There is a very
good possibility that St. Paul meant 'works' to mean 'ceremonial
works' such as circumcision, animal sacrifice, food observances,
which the Jews thought could justify them before God. A
legitimate case could be made for this interpretation, especially
considering St. Paul's reference to circumcision later in verse
11. But let us say that St. Paul did mean 'good works'. It is
still very conceivable that St. Paul meant that you could not be
saved by works ALONE, since he says that you are not saved 'of
yourselves,' which allows for, I respectfully submit, the
possibility of 'works of faith' still being nonetheless
necessary. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Church that this
great privilege of salvation issues from a twofold gift: grace on
the part of God, faith on the part of man - faith being the
instrument for grace (v. 8-9) to ACT (v.10). The gift is wholly
from God, and the Council of Orange (529 A.D.) used this text to
prove that the beginnings of faith are a gift of God. The reason
why all this issues from God and not from ourselves is that we
are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus - a new creation just
as surely as our entry into natural life was a creation.
Now for 1
Corinthians 9:24-27. For this teaching St. Paul borrows from the
Greek athletic contests which were extremely popular throughout
the eastern provinces. The moral of the story is that a man may
be a 'Christian' (i.e. professes to be a Christian) and yet not
be saved, just as a man may run a race and not win it. In your
analysis, you have effectively come to the same conclusion
although you state it differently, saying that such a man is a
'false believer'. Although similar, the manner in which our
conclusions are stated demonstrates the difference between the
Protestant belief in 'faith alone' and the Catholic belief in
'faith and works' for justification.
St. Paul was,
arguably, the greatest of the Apostles and certainly the most
learned and educated. Yet, he had 'fear that he himself might be
disqualified.' When St. Paul says he is afraid of being
'disqualified', that begs the question: disqualified from what?
Now, you quite correctly acknowledged that the 'prize' which St.
Paul speaks about is eternal life, and 'running the race' is
living the Christian life. Therefore, it logically follows that
St. Paul admits the possibility of being disqualified from the
race and not obtaining the prize, or in other words, losing his
salvation.
Your solution to
this inescapable conclusion is to claim that such a 'Christian'
was not a true believer in the first place. Indeed, you would be
hard-pressed to convince me (and many others no doubt) that St.
Paul could be a 'false believer' when he wrote this letter to the
Corinthians. Yet, the Apostle himself admits that he COULD
forfeit his inheritance. What are we to conclude? That St. Paul
was a 'false believer' HIS WHOLE LIFE if he were to later fall
into apostasy? In order to further highlight the difference
between our two views, consider the following example.
At 21 years of
age, Henry comes to know the Lord and accepts Him as his
'personal Lord and Saviour'. He goes to Bible study, he prays
intently, and comes to know the Lord in a very special way. Ten
years later, Henry abandons Christianity, and decides to pursue
his monetary interests in this world. Besides, he has lost his
faith in God altogether and become an atheist. He even goes so
far as to attack Christianity when the opportunity arises in
social occasions. In effect, Henry has not only become an
apostate, but also an enemy of God. Henry holds to his atheistic
and anti-Christian biases for the rest of his whole life, and
then dies. Question: Is he saved?
The Catholic
position is this. Henry lost his faith and denied Christ, and did
not repent of this sin before He died. Therefore, he will not be
saved since he did not persevere in his initial profession of
faith. Fundamentalism holds, however, that salvation is awarded
at a point in time, and therefore there is nothing that can
'unsave' someone. This belief, however, necessarily causes a
number of difficulties. For Fundamentalism, the alternatives are
these:
i) Henry is not
saved because he did not persevere in his faith. He denied Jesus.
He lost his faith. Therefore, he lost his salvation.
ii) Henry is still
saved since he did, at one point in his life, 'accept Jesus as
his personal Lord and Saviour'.
iii) Henry is not
saved since he did not really have a 'sincere' faith at all. He
really did not believe to begin with, so he could not have been
eternally saved. He was a 'false believer'.
Analysis:
The Protestant
position will reject the first alternative since it is the
Catholic position. If it did accept the first alternative, it
would be rejecting the idea of 'assured salvation'.
The second
alternative offends common reason. No rational person would
accept this alternative since the most odious unrepentant sinner
could enter heaven by just professing Jesus as his 'personal Lord
and Saviour'. (For instance, if Hitler had made this profession
in his youth, he could be still saved! The reason this is such an
abhorrent idea is only because Hitler did such evil things.)
The third
alternative is the only one that can be held, at least at the
outset, by the Protestant apologist. However, this option is also
fraught with difficulties and contradictions. This alternative
falls apart when one seeks out the meaning of a 'sincere faith'.
The New Webster's dictionary defines 'sincere' as 'utterly honest
and genuine'. If the proponent of Protestantism holds to this
definition of sincerity while also holding to 'solo fide', he
will have to say that the person who loses his faith was not
honest when he first accepted Christ into his life. To hold to
this position, however, is really straining credibility. Common
reason and respect dictate that people who accept a principle
(i.e. any principle or belief - not just a religious belief) are
indeed sincere at the beginning of their profession. To suggest
otherwise is, frankly, ridiculously cynical and skeptical. Thus,
when Henry professed his Faith in Christ at the start, he was
likely sincere and honest with himself and God - he really did
accept Christ and believe in Him. Therefore, if Henry's sincerity
is conceded, then the third alternative is not possible and the
Protestant position consequently falls.
But let us say,
for the sake of argument, that the Protestant still holds to this
point in his defence that - in fact - Henry could not have been
really sincere in his initial profession of faith if he later
rejected Christ. The Protestant position holds that Henry must
have a sincere faith to be saved. Notice, however, that the
Protestant has added the dimension of TIME to his definition of
sincerity. Since the Protestant uses Henry's later rejection of
Christ as a measure of Henry's sincerity of his first profession,
the Protestant is effectively saying 'you are only truly sincere
if you endure to the end.' Consequently, the Protestant has
admitted to the Catholic position of perseverance in faith for
salvation, as well as the logical ancillary to this, which is a
salvation which can be lost.
In order to
reconcile the constant biblical theme of a persevering faith, the
Protestant might forgo the belief in 'instant-time' salvation to
adopt a more scriptural belief of the necessity of a 'constant
faith' instead. To abandon this original Protestant belief,
however, implicitly admits that salvation is not certain on one
single profession of faith. If salvation is dependent on an
enduring faith, then it must be more than just a confessional
faith. Indeed, it would suggest a confessional faith, although
necessary, is like a mustard seed (Cf. Luke 13:19) which must
grow into its full maturity by entering into the Christian life
more completely. In seeking to obtain this maturity and fullness,
it produces fruit (Cf. Luke 8:15), and thereby evolves from a
'confessional faith' into a 'living faith' - a faith which does
what Jesus commands us to do. To stunt this growing process and
prevent the seed from developing into a 'living faith', reduces
the confessional faith to a dead faith. And a dead faith does not
bring eternal life (Cf. James 2:14).
Hope to hear from
you soon, Leonard...
