The "Obedience" Challenge
Challenge: In John 3:36, Jesus says this: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Why does Jesus use "obey" and "believe" interchangeably? Why does Jesus put a condition on eternal life by requiring obedience? If He does, how does that impact the doctrine of an irrevocable salvation?
[Word Limit: 750 words]
Click here to submit your response
The Challenger's comments are in red. John Pacheco responds in blue.
Challenge #2
This is a quite simple challenge, really, as it has been addressed for centuries by Reformed theology. (It's 2 A.M., & I'll the best I can with my sleep deprived brain. Nice website, by the way.)
Thank you.
Let me just quote your position in blue and comment:
The biblical model does not separate obedience from faith but assumes it. This is the point of Jesus' teaching above. He is basically saying: "If you believe in me and obey my commandments, you will have eternal life. If you do not believe and, by logical necessity, refuse to obey my commandments, then you will perish." Our Lord emphasizes this point in his discourse with the Jews later in the Gospel of John: "Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death." (John 8:51) The conditional statement would be completely superflous if Our Lord were not tying obedience to eternal life. The same teaching is repeated by St. Paul in 2 Timothy 2:12.
If you truly believe in Jesus, you will obey what He teaches. That's where the rubber meets the road or, biblically speaking, that's where the cross is laid on your shoulders, and anyone who does not take his cross and follow him is not worthy of him. (Cf. Matthew 10:38)
John Pacheco
Believe it or not, the Reformed Faith agrees with virtually everything I just quoted. I only say "virtually" and not "absolutely" because it is possible I was careless, but I believe I read each sentence carefully. I particularly agree with the way that you wrote:
"The conditional statement would be completely superflous if Our Lord were not tying obedience to eternal life."
If there is so much agreement here then why does the Reformed position differ from the Roman Catholic position? The answer is that the Reformed (and biblical) doctrine makes a distinction between Justification and Sanctification in salvation where the Roman Catholic teaching on salvation confuses Justification and Sanctification in salvation. I would put our two beliefs in these two formulas to illustrate:
Yours (RC): Faith + obedience ---> Justification
Mine (Reformed): Faith = Justfication ---> obedience
Yes, I understand that Reformers make a distinction between Justification and Sanctification. The problem is, of course, it is a distinction without any biblical substance. Paul never portrays justification and sanctification according to Reformed rubrics. For one thing, justification is not only spoken of in the past, but in the present and the future (Cf. Romans 5:1, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:7, Romans 8:33, Acts 13:39, Gal 2:17, James 2:24, 1 Cor. 4:4-5, Matt. 12:37, Romans 2:13). Sanctification is not something that can be separated from justification since without sanctification, there can be no justification. Consider this passage from St. Paul, for instance:
"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:11)
Notice how sanctification precedes justification? This doesn't seem to fit into the Reformed view of justification first and then sanctification later, does it? That's because there is no neat little division in existence.
I don't really think you saw my position as a possibility since your challenge doesn't even indicate that this could be a viable position. However, this is no trickery: The classical Reformed position stated that works/obedience are a NECESSARY part of the Justification formula.
So, in other words, if they are necessary, then it is impossible to be saved without them because that is what "necessary" means! If you are going to say that works are necessary for your salvation, then obviously it has a bearing on your salvation, by definition. Now then compare:
You: "The classical Reformed position stated that works/obedience are a NECESSARY part of the Justification formula."
Dordt: "Yet for as much as they are all sanctified by his grace: howbeit they are of no account towards our justification." (The Canons of Dordt, Confession of Faith, 24)
If you get rid of the word "obedience" in my equation then it truly ruins the whole thing! In Reformed theology you CANNOT divorce obedience from faith, which is exactly what you say when you said, "The biblical model does not separate obedience from faith but assumes it." It can't be, though, that faith + obedience count toward eternal life as you say.
Sure it can. As I quoted to you above, Jesus specifically ties keeping His word to eternal life:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death." (John 8:51)
Notice that Jesus does not talk about "faith", but goes right to the heart of the matter: whether you are a man of your word of not. He assumes that if you do obey, then obviously you have faith. But having only "faith" does not necessarily mean that you will obey. This is revealed by St. James:
"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" (James 2:14 KJV)
Notice that James puts a sharp dividing line between having "faith" (i.e. Can faith save him?) and doing the works of faith. He rhetorically asks if "faith" can save apart from works. His answer is unequivocably NO. He does not talk about the type of faith but simply "faith". In other words, there is "faith" and there is "works" and you need both to be saved.
"So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." (James 2:17 RSV)
This sentence would make no sense if works followed naturally from faith since there would be no point in saying: "IF faith has no works" (which St. James teaches) since, according to you, "faith always has works". There would be no point to the conditional clause if works necessarily followed from faith. In other words, having "faith" does not necessarily mean that you will do the works required for salvation. That is exactly the danger James' audience was falling into, and the reason he wrote his letter.
Is Christ truly teaching that obedience counts toward eternal life? Is that what Paul is truly teaching? What is more consistent than that position in Scripture when taking passages on faith, obedience, and eternal life in all their contexts is that faith results in eternal life which NECESSARILY leads to good works of obedience. Put another way, Justification and Sanctification are distinct units in Scripture and in Reformed theology, but units NECESSARILY joined together as you might see two railroad train cars: faith comes first and brings Justification, but MUST be followed by works which brings Sanctification.
I've addressed the Justification/Sanctification issue above so there is no point discussing it again. As for faith necessarily leading to good works, I suggest that you read the Epistle of St. James again carefully, especially Chapter 2. Ask yourself in all honesty if St. James really believed that works flowed naturally and necessarily from faith.
What you are probably used to combating is this erroneous view: Faith = eternal life. The Reformed Faith teaches against that also. You see the period after eternal life in that formula because those who took the Reformation too far and did not stay true to the classical Reformers (and Scripture) believe today in an "easy believe-ism" which says, "Just believe in Christ and you are saved no matter what you do!"
Forgive me, but I must tell you that I am very amused at this comment: "because those who took the Reformation too far..." Uh huh. I agree completely. I think Calvin and Luther did go too far :) Who gets to say which "Reformer" goes to far? You? On what authority, which is unavailable to your opponents, do you make this charge?
Many times they will even explain that you will be saved no matter what you do but that you should at least WANT to do what is right some or most of the time. The Scriptures, the Reformers, and present day Reformed theology deny that as a credible possibility. A professing Christian who says he is a Christian and does not do what Christ says has a false faith that was never real, and if he believes he is going to Heaven he is sadly mistaken.
As Christ said, "Why do you call me Lord and do not the things that I tell you?" (paraphrase) You cannot lose what you never genuinely had, which is exactly why James said "2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"
But don't you see what you are doing? You are defining who gets into heaven by the works people do. The only difference is that you are calling the rejection of these works a "false faith". But it's the same thing. It comes down to an act of love. Accept it and live. Reject it and die.
Now you mistakenly assume that the loss of salvation is possible just because the Scripture uses language that makes obedience a condition of salvation along with faith.
No, that is not quite right. The Scriptures are replete with passages which warn BELIEVERS of losing their salvation. Here is one for you to consider:
Romans 11:19-22: "You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off."
Did you catch the $64,000 word in the passage? That’s right! The word is provided which indicates a conditional and provisional clause. That means your salvation is not assured. It is provisional on you "continuing in His kindness" OTHERWISE you too will be CUT OFF.
However, in the Reformed Faith and in the Scriptures Justification and Sanctification are distinctives of an overall redemption of the sinner. From the moment a sinner experiences faith in Christ (not just a knowledge belief but a truly trusting belief--like you put your faith in your doctor) the Believer is then experiencing an overall redemption that will continue on through this life until he reaches his home in Heaven. This is eternal life, and it's not very eternal if you can lose it.
Huh? When Jesus speaks of "eternal life", He's not talking about whether you have an irrevocable claim to it. He's talking about how long it lasts!
Again, this eternal life starts at the moment a person has faith in Christ (Justification). Justification is the initial act of God that sets the sinner in right relationship with Him by faith, so that in Romans we read:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 5:4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
You see that being justified by faith we have peace with God now. We then stand in assurance by faith in Christ's work on the cross. But then tribulation comes which separates the sheep from the goats because only the sheep of the Good Shepherd can truly GLORY in tribulation.
Yes, and YOU will never know if you are saved or not until you face that challenge. If you fall and reject God's grace to get back up, your theology can tell you that you were never a believer to begin with, but deep down you know that is simply not true. You believe in Christ with your whole heart right now, and regardless of what happens in the future, this is your assured conviction today.
The tests and trials that come our way reveal if our faith is genuine or not, but Paul speaks here of a confidence in Christ that the true Believer has. This hope here is not an "iffy" hope, but a hope built on Christ the Rock. The end result is that our hope doesn't end in shame because the Holy Spirit, Who has been given to us, has been sanctifying us and making us truly holy. Despite claims to the contrary, Declared Righteousness of Justification does not prevent a real righteousness being worked in the Believer by the Holy Spirit in Sanctification. Francis Turretin, the great Italian scholar, details much of what I've conveyed to you in his writings from the 1600's, so this is no modern twist on your tricky dilemma. What is necessary is to steer clear of the radical Protestant position that obedience is not a necessary part of redemption, but to also steer clear of the RC mistake on the opposite side that combines faith and obedience in Justification.
The RC "error" was the prevalent view of Christianity before the Reformers. That's why they are called "Reformers" because they reformed Chistianity into a religion of man.
"We are commanded to live righteously, and the reward is set before us of our meriting to live happily in eternity. But who is able to live righteously and do good works unless he has been justified by faith?" (St. Augustine, Various Questions to Simplician 1:2:21 [396])
In short, I have little disagreement with your position EXCEPT that obedience does not add towards Justification or eternal life.
But above you said that obedience was necessary for justification:
"The classical Reformed position stated that works/obedience are a NECESSARY part of the Justification formula."
That faith alone results in Justification explains why this is mentioned SO FREQUENTLY in Scripture, without obedience ever being mentioned, yet it also explains why many passages tie faith and obedience together. Else wise it would seem that Paul is being somewhat irresponsible when he "forgets" to say that obedience counts towards your Justification in so many places...(Cf, Gal. 2:16, Gal 3:8; Rom. 1:17, Rom. 3:22, Rom 3:28).It's just astounding to think that Paul would write so much the words "Justification/righteousness by faith" but yet leave out the important component of obedience if obedience were necessary for Justification.
Your difficulty can be solved by realizing one thing. St. Paul was not pitting "faith" against "works" but rather "faith" against "law". You can read about some of my observations in this dialogue: Rescuing the Romans from the Reformers Again.
James chapter 2 even affirms what I've presented, but I have to stop since I'm probably way past 750. I apologize if I am! I don't really care if this is posted or not, but if I can convey this truth to just you, John, then that's good enough. I am one person who would love to see the Reformed camp and the RC camp get together again, but I see this as a legitimate difference for separation. Yet there are many, many things I do love and admire about the RCC.
Thank you for your Christian charity. May God hasten the day of full unity among all Christians. St. Augustine, pray for us!
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
February 20, 2003
Challenge #1
Hi! I'm trying to understand this verse... John 3:36.
I'm curious as to the Greek translation of the words "obey" and "believe". When I looked this up online, here's what it said about the words. It appears to me that the word obey could also be translated as believe. This is exactly how it is translated in the KJV. How would you address this discrepancy?
Thanks!
Leslie H.
Mother of 6 and a fellow online catholic apologist!
pist-yoo'-o
1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in 1a) of the thing believed 1a1) to credit, have confidence 1b) in a moral or religious reference 1b1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul 1b2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith 1bc) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith 2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity 2a) to be intrusted with a thing
ap-i-theh'-o
1) not to allow one's self to be persuaded 1a) to refuse or
withhold belief 1b) to refuse belief and obedience 2) not to
comply with.
Let me begin by citing a number of translations of the verse:
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (New International Version)
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (New American Standard Bible)
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (King James Version)
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." (New American Bible)
"He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him." (Douay Rheims)
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." (Revised Standard Version)
As one can see, the translation of ap-i-theh'-o is effectively translated as either "belief" or "obey" across confessional lines. This suggests the words are essentially interchangeable in meaning. If we take the NASB translation, which is a Protestant one, you will notice that it renders ap-i-theh'-o as "obey". This is very revealing since it indicates that when the bible speaks of belief (or faith), it is typically tied to obedience. St. Paul, for instance, speaks of this partnership in describing his Apostolic mission which, he says, is "to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations" (Romans 1:5).
The biblical model does not separate obedience from faith but assumes it. This is the point of Jesus' teaching above. He is basically saying: "If you believe in me and obey my commandments, you will have eternal life. If you do not believe and, by logical necessity, refuse to obey my commandments, then you will perish." Our Lord emphasizes this point in his discourse with the Jews later in the Gospel of John: "Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death." (John 8:51) The conditional statement would be completely superflous if Our Lord were not tying obedience to eternal life. The same teaching is repeated by St. Paul in 2 Timothy 2:12.
If you truly believe in Jesus, you will obey what He teaches. That's where the rubber meets the road or, biblically speaking, that's where the cross is laid on your shoulders, and anyone who does not take his cross and follow him is not worthy of him. (Cf. Matthew 10:38)
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
June 1, 2002