Challenge #1

I have been reading and absorbing much of the information on your sight of late and I wanted to pass along to you that I finally found the section on your web site: dialogue - justification - assured salvation. I must admit feeling a little foolish posing a question you had so well addressed in your previous dialogue with Leonard.

Not a problem. You are not expected to read everything on the site or even the Q&A to be allowed to ask a question.

Anyway, as for the second part of my response to your challenge, would a true convert 'believer' be 'puffed up with conceit'? Since conceit is not one of the fruits of the Spirit, then couldn't that mean the warning St. Paul was giving was against false converts?

The verse says this:

"He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil..." (1 Tim 3:6)

The passage says nothing of "false converts". If it did, St. Paul would have told us - like he did in other places of his discourses. He does not refrain from calling others "false witnesses" (1 Cor 15:15)", "false apostles" (2 Cor 11:13), and "false brothers" (2 Cor 11:26, Gal. 2:4) when they were. He could have easily said the same thing here but he did not. The above text says that these particular people were "recent converts" which means "recent believers" since, by definition, a convert is now a believer. He tacitly admits that a convert may fall into sin (i.e. be puffed up with conceit) and risk damnation. Hence the person who is given the office of bishop (which is the context in which the verse is situated) should not be a recent believer because there are great temptations in being the leader of a Christian community. If you are a recent convert, your spirituality is not likely to have been yet properly formed, and therefore you are at risk of pride and conceit if you are appointed to such a high position of honor and authority in the church. That is the point of St. Paul's pastoral counsel to Timothy.

FYI, My own understanding of this issue (Baptist background) is roughly that while you cannot lose your salvation, there are greater degree's of reward in heaven and greater degree's of punishment in hell. The examples given of Charles Templeton and others who have renounced their faith and become foes of Christ strain this simplistic understanding, however.

Steven, do you think St. Paul thought his salvation was assured and irrevocable?

Also, while salvation is a gift of grace through faith that cannot be earned

The Catholic Church also teaches that salvation cannot be earned or merited by human works outside of the grace of God. She has always taught this.

Ephesians 2:8-10,11: "for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory...."

what I see is often ignored are the following verses:

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them."

and James 2:17-26: "Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith. Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works,in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead."

Steven, how do you explain verses 21 and 24 where it explicitly says that man is justified by works? My second question to you is this: why does verse 23 say that Gen. 15:6 was FULFILLED when Abraham offered Isaac on the altar (v.21)? Does that not suggest to you that Gen. 15:6 was incomplete without works?

I offer the above to give you some of my background. I am gaining much from your articles and the catholicintl site in general. Your well researched answers offers much to strengthen the cause of Christ and increase my understanding of and appreciation of the Catholic faith.

Your very welcome. Thank you for your Christian charity.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

John Pacheco

If you are a recent convert, your spirituality is not likely to have been yet properly formed, and therefore you are at risk of pride and conceit if you are appointed to such a high position of honor and authority in the church. That is the point of St. Paul's pastoral counsel to Timothy.

A good point; then were Ananias and Sapphira ( Acts 5 ) true believers who fell then?

I suspect so. Of course, I do not suggest that there are no such thing as "false believers". Indeed, 1 John 2:19 says there are. What I reject is that it is ALWAYS the case. Even in the case of 1 John 2:19, verse 17 says: "And the world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who DOES the will of God abides forever". What about those who don't do the will of God? Will they abide forever?

The best description of all possibilities is found in Matthew 13:3-8:

"A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. (FALSE BELIEVERS)

Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. (LACK OF PERSERVERANCE #1)

Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. (LACK OF PERSERVERANCE #2)

Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop--a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown." (THE VICTOR)

Steven, do you think St. Paul thought his salvation was assured and irrevocable?

No. The scripture says otherwise. It seems that my understanding / reasoning has been simplistic / incomplete, as I stated before. (Thanks for the question.)

For example: 1 Corinthians 9:26-27 - "I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the air, but I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage: lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected."

A Man after my own heart! That's exactly the passage I was going to give you! Here is another one. Read Romans 11. I bet you can pick out the two words that disprove assured salvation.

The Catholic Church also teaches that salvation cannot be earned or merited by human works outside of the grace of God. She has always taught this.

Steven, how do you explain verses 21 and 24 where it explicitly says that man is justified by works?

We (I believe) are saved unto good works. The absence of real change, evidenced by obedience and good works, indicates lack of saving faith.

What makes faith "saving"? Is it not works? If it is, then works (under God's grace) is a necessary condition for eternal life. Isn't that another way of saying I am saved by "faith (belief,trust) and works"?

Is justification the same as salvation? ( I will reread this scripture and also research this issue on your site... )

Justification is simply being "right with God". Salvation is the end of Justification. It is the heavenly reward you get for being in communion with God after you die.

My second question to you is this: why does verse 23 say that Gen. 15:6 was FULFILLED when Abraham offered Isaac on the altar (v.21)? Does that not suggest to you that Gen. 15:6 was incomplete without works?

Yes, verse 23 seems to suggest that. For in Gen. 15:6, the emphasis is placed on the act of Abraham believing. Then in James 2:23 James ties Abraham's later acts to the earlier belief.

Exactly. Abraham was justified in Genesis 15:6 on his simple profession of faith, but that, by itself, did not guarantee that relationship with God could never be broken. God put him to the test in Genesis 22 and he passed it, but what if he didn't trust God and did not offer Isaac's life? Would he still be justified? How could he in breaking God's commandment?

Abraham's situation is not unlike a married couple who both exchange their vows on their wedding day. At the time, they are "in love" with one another, but as we all know, that's no guarantee that they will be faithful to their vows and remain married.

Your very welcome. Thank you for your Christian charity.

You are the one exercising the Christian charity, IMHO. Thanks for patiently answering my questions.

No problem, Steven. Anything I can do, just ask.

Regards in the Lord,

John Pacheco