Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #185

General Comments

I hope this week has been one of prayer, reflection, and growth in holiness for you; and I hope you and your loved ones have a happy and holy Easter and Easter Season.

A couple of things:

1) I have another YouTube video out. You can view it at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJOuzALavT0

2) If you wish to share these videos on Facebook or Twitter, I think all you have to do is type in the link, and it will get out to your “Friends” on Facebook and all those who are “Following” you on Twitter. Also, if you want to do the same with the newsletters, you can go to the “Newsletter” page of our website (www.biblechristiansociety.com), click on any of the newsletters, and then copy the link or URL or whatever it’s called, into your Facebook or Twitter accounts. A relatively easy way to help us “spread the Word!”

Introduction

This week continues the discussion I was having with Mr. Weber regarding “absolute assurance” of salvation. It started in the last newsletter – http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter_details.php?id=236 – if you wish to refresh your memory by re-reading that.

In this issue, I will start with his response to my last email, which I will first print in its entirety, and then I will reprint his email with my comments interspersed between and betwixt his.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Mr. Weber:

Thanks for your response. I certainly understand that you have a lot of correspondence to answer. I appreciate you responding to mine, although I didn’t see any reason for the name calling.

It would be foolish to argue which of us has the correct interpretation of those passages, so let’s for the sake of discussion assume you are correct and that salvation is a process and that you can lose your salvation.

By your reasoning, I can see that the Apostle Paul was saved one minute and when he sinned, as he said so vividly in Romans, that he was then, not saved. By the same token, the Apostle Peter was saved, but then lost his salvation when he denied Christ.

If, as you discribe, the person who wishes to inherit eternal life, must gradually gain that salvation, which point does he have to reach? and how does he get there? By works? That can’t be, because in order for that to be true, you would have to throw out the whole book of both Galatians and Romans, where Paul stresses that works play no part in salvation. And, of course, Peter, in his writings verified that the message that Paul had was the correct one.

I taught the book of Romans in the Ukraine several years ago and after a discussion of this topic, a young lady came up to me and said she was happy that I covered that subject and showed her what the Bible had to say about salvation. She said, contrary to your statement, that she was worried that she would sin and die without confessing it and go to Hell as a result. She left the class with the peace that Christ promised her when he said, "my peace I give unto you – not as the world giveth".

I don’t have centuries of men interpreting the scriptures for me. I was saved through the message of the Bible and I am just foolish enough to believe the Apostle that you call the first Pope, when he said, "These things have I written that you may KNOW that you have eternal life."

I am sorry for you that you can’t have that same confidence.

-——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Mr. Weber:

Well, with all due respect, but I didn’t call you any names. The only thing I can think you might be referring to in that regard is when I said that your claim – that a Christian cannot have "the peace that Christ promised us," unless he believes as you believe in absolute assurance of salvation – was an "incredibly arrogant" thing to say. That is not saying that you are, in general, an arrogant person – you may or may not be – it is merely stating a fact that that was an incredibly arrogant statement. You do not know me. You do not know my heart. How then can you say I do not have the peace of Christ? You do not know the many Catholics that I know. You do not know their hearts. How then can you say they do not have the peace of Christ? Is it not arrogant to judge another’s heart, especially when you’ve never met that person, and especially when the Word of God itself tells us, "Judge not lest ye be judged?" So, I was not calling you a name, per se, I was merely speaking the truth about that particular statement of yours, and I stand by what I said. If you wish to offer evidence that you are indeed in possession of knowledge regarding the state of each and every Catholic’s heart, then I will happily retract my statement.

Mr. Weber:

It would be foolish to argue which of us has the correct interpretation of those passages, so let’s for the sake of discussion assume you are correct and that salvation is a process and that you can lose your salvation.

John Martignoni:

You say it would be foolish to argue which of us has the correct interpretation of those passages, yet you then proceed to argue that your interpretation of those passages is correct and mine is not. What I noticed in your last email, is that where I provided a direct point-by-point response to your arguments, which I am again doing here, you failed to do so with mine. You did not directly address my points nor did you directly answer my questions. For example, and this is a very important question for you to think about and answer: Do you claim to be infallible in your interpretation of Scripture? Yes or no? I ask because, if you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then will you admit that your interpretations could be wrong? Again, this is important because you are telling me that my interpretations are wrong. Yet, you are not giving me anything other than your own personal opinion for why you think they are wrong. So, I am compelled to ask, since you are relying strictly on your private interpretation of Scripture here, are you infallible? If you claim to be, please give me evidence for such a claim that I may believe. If you are not personally infallible, then what authority do you rely upon to make such claims and can you give me evidence of the infalliblity of this authority that I may believe?

Mr. Weber:

By your reasoning, I can see that the Apostle Paul was saved one minute and when he sinned, as he said so vividly in Romans, that he was then, not saved. By the same token, the Apostle Peter was saved, but then lost his salvation when he denied Christ.

John Martignoni:

Again, with all due respect, but I am not the Apostle Paul’s nor the Apostle Peter’s judge. It is not up to me to say when one was saved or when one wasn’t saved. As Paul says in 1 Cor 4, it is the Lord Who judges. Do you agree that it is the Lord Who judges or not? We are not to pronounce judgment before the Lord comes. So, I will stand with Scripture on that point.

You are trying to distract from the main point of my response to you. You claimed that I had "used the writings of Paul incorrectly." And, you specifically stated that the verses I had cited from Paul’s letters, were not about salvation, rather they were about Paul’s "development as a Christian." So, what did I do? I went through each verse, citing specific words and phrases from those verses, to show that they were indeed about salvation. I made very specific arguments that directly refuted your claim. How do you respond? By going back to those verses to show where my arguments fall short? By using specific words and phrases from those verses to bolster your claim that they are indeed about Paul’s "development as a Christian?" No. You essentially ignore my arguments and start talking instead about when Peter and Paul were or were not saved according to a false version of Catholic teaching that you have apparently bought into.

So, this is what I would like for you to do. Please go to those verses that I cited in my last response, which you claim are speaking of Paul’s "development as a Christian," and explain to me exactly where it says such a thing in those verses and tell me how it is those verses are not speaking about salvation even though they mention judgment, and the return of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead, and so on.

In the meantime, I will respond to your statements about Peter and Paul thusly: Were Adam and Eve saved when they were in the Garden? When a child is born, is it born into a state of grace; i.e., is it saved when it is born? Or, to put it another way, if a baby dies, does it go to Heaven or Hell?

Mr. Weber:
If, as you discribe, the person who wishes to inherit eternal life, must gradually gain that salvation, which point does he have to reach? and how does he get there? By works? That can’t be, because in order for that to be true, you would have to throw out the whole book of both Galatians and Romans, where Paul stresses that works play no part in salvation. And, of course, Peter, in his writings verified that the message that Paul had was the correct one.

John Martignoni:

You are mistaken in your interpretation of my words, sir. Which indicates, that if you cannot properly interpret the words of a mere man, then any claim on your part to be able to infallibly interpret the words of the Divine, must be greatly suspect. Nowhere did I say, nor did I imply, that one must "gradually gain" salvation. One is either in a state of grace (saved) or they are in a state of mortal sin (lost) – there is no halfway point between the two. Nor did I say that one gains their salvation by works. The Catholic Church teaches that one is saved through Baptism (John 3:3-5; 1 Ptr 3:20-21; Acts 2:38), and that this is an absolutely free gift of God – not because of faith nor because of works. That salvation is an absolutely free gift of God can be seen most clearly in the practice of infant Baptism, where the child cannot make an act of faith nor can he perform any work. He is saved gratuitously by God.

However, once a person is justified (saved) through Baptism, then they must continue to abide in Christ, or they can lose that salvation (John 15:6). How do you abide in Christ? Through faith and works (John 6:54, 56; John 15:10; 1 John 2:5-6; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:16; 2 John 9). In other words, God gives us a free gift – the gift of eternal life. We do not earn that gift, it is freely given. Yet, we have to respond to that gift. We can choose to not open that gift; to not apply it to our lives; to reject it – at any point after we have been saved. That’s why Paul warns the Gentiles about the possibility of being cut off from the olive tree (Christ) in Romans 11:17-24 – a verse which I previously mentioned, but which you failed to respond to. That’s why Paul tells the Galatians that if they accept circumcision, and the law that goes with it, they will be severed from Christ (Gal 5:4) – another verse to which you failed to respond.

Furthermore, we do not have to throw out the Books of Romans and Galatians – Catholics believe every single verse in each of those books, and there is nothing in either of those books that is contrary to anything in the Catholic Faith, and vice versa. The problem you are having again stems from a bad interpretation you have made. Romans and Galatians do not say that "works play no part in salvation," they say that "works of the law" play no part in salvation. Does that mean all works? No, it does not. It means the works of the law that were imposed upon the Israelites by God in the desert. We see this quite clearly in Galatians 3:17 which tells us the law came "four hundred and thirty years after" Abraham. In other words, the phrase, "works of the law," refers not to all good works, as you interpret it, but to the very specific requirements of the Mosaic Law.

By your reasoning, a person can be saved, but then can go out and commit murder, rape, robbery, blasphemy, heresy, idolatry, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, and every other manner of sin, and never repent of those sins, and yet still be absolutely assured of their salvation. That, with all due respect, is nuts. If eternal security – absolute assurance of salvation – is true, then Paul’s letters to the Romans, to the Corinthians, the Galatians, Ephesians, and everyone else should have simply said: "Hey guys, you made it. Relax and rest easy because you’re saved. See ya in Heaven. Paul"

Mr. Weber:

I taught the book of Romans in the Ukraine several years ago and after a discussion of this topic, a young lady came up to me and said she was happy that I covered that subject and showed her what the Bible had to say about salvation. She said, contrary to your statement, that she was worried that she would sin and die without confessing it and go to Hell as a result. She left the class with the peace that Christ promised her when he said, "my peace I give unto you – not as the world giveth".

John Martignoni:

Excuse me, but one Catholic who was obviously poorly catechized in her faith, somehow "proves" your point?! I have met any number of Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists, etc. who have come into the Catholic Faith, who say they now have more peace in their lives than they ever did in their previous faith tradition, where they all believed in absolute assurance of salvation. They have the peace of Christ because they are now in the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself – the Church which the Holy Spirit will not let lead anyone astray. And they have great comfort and peace in that fact.

I have met a number of former Protestant ministers who say they would oft have nightmares wondering if they were teaching their flock the truth, because they rightly realized that what they were teaching was their own private interpretation of the Bible. They had no infallible authority behind what they were teaching – no authority of any type behind what they were teaching (and neither do you). And that caused them sleepless nights because they realized there was a chance they might be wrong. Sleepless nights that they no longer have because they are now Catholic.

That is why I have repeatedly asked you that question about whether or not you are infallible in your interpretation of the Bible, and that is why you will not directly answer me in that regard. Whether you admit it to me or not, you know that you are not infallible. Which means, and you have to admit this, there is the possiblility that one or more of the doctrines you have discerned in your private reading of the Bible, could be wrong – including the doctrine of eternal security. Which means, that you cannot have "absolute assurance" of your salvation, since you are not infallible. Oh, you can fool yourself into believing you have absolute assurance, but as Proverbs says, "All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes."

And I noticed you also did not answer the question I asked you about absolute assurance. I think you maybe avoid answering these questions directly because you know where your answers are going to lead. That question, again, is this: Do you believe that there are people who think they are saved, but they really are not saved? Yes or no? If you say, yes, and I know you will, then I would ask you: How do you know you’re not one of those people? All of which means, that it is impossible for you, under your system of theology, to have absolute assurance of salvation. Again, you are not infallible, therefore, your private interpretations that have led you to believe in absolute assurance could possibly be wrong; and, since there is the possibility that one can believe they are saved yet not be, means that no one who believes they are saved can have absolute assurance – because they could be one of those poor souls who believes they’re saved but really aren’t. The end result, is that Catholics, who at least claim to have an infallible guide in the area of faith and morals, have the chance to obtain a much greater level of peace than do non-Catholics who have no such guide.

So, I will see your one confused and poorly catechized young Catholic woman from the Ukraine, and raise you dozens upon dozens of former Protestants/Evangelicals/Baptists that I have met – including a number of former pastors of those denominations who graduated from their respective Bible schools.

You know, I have noticed that quite often the folks I’m dialoguing with will start out using the Bible, but when I show them that their interpretation of the Bible is not in line with the actual words of the Bible, they quickly shift to anecdotal evidence to "prove" their case, exactly as you have done.

Mr. Weber:
I don’t have centuries of men interpreting the scriptures for me. I was saved through the message of the Bible and I am just foolish enough to believe the Apostle [John], when he said, "These things have I written that you may KNOW that you have eternal life."

John Martignoni:

Well, the fact that you don’t even claim a guide for interpreting your Bible, is very troublesome to me. First of all, it seems to be a very prideful thing on your part. After reading what you said here, am I correct in assuming that you are your own church? That you can’t find a church home because you can’t find a pastor who is 100% in line with your interpretation of the Bible? The Scriptures give a very clear indication that it is necessary to have an infallible guide to fully understand Scripture (Acts 8:30-31), and that individuals can, and do, twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Ptr 3:16). So, I advise you to be most cautious in promulgating doctrine that you have discerned all on your own, without any authority behind you.

So, you believe that 1 John 5:13 teaches eternal security, eh? Well, let’s look at that: "I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." "Amen!" says the Catholic. Eternal life is the reward of those who believe in the name of the Son of God. Agreed. 100% agreed. I know that I have eternal life if I believe in the name of the Son of God. Does it say, however, that once you believe in the Son of God, you cannot ever lose your salvation? No, it doesn’t. For instance, what if you believe in the name of the Son of God, so you’re irrevocably saved – according to your theology – but then at some future point in your life, you stop believing in the name of the Son of God? Are you still saved? According to you, the answer is yes! But, according to the Bible, you can’t be saved if you don’t believe in the Son of God. You’ve got a bit of a quandary there.

Now, you may claim that it is not possible to believe in the name of the Son of God, and then to stop believing in it. But, the Bible would disagree with you. Check out for instance, Heb 6:4-6. Also, look at 2 Ptr 2:20-22. Also, look at the language of Ezek 33:13. God says to the righteous that he, the righteous, shall "surely" live. So, the righteous believes that he is saved. Just like you believe you are saved. But, what happens to the righteous. Is he "surely," irrevocably, with absolute assurance, saved? Nope. If the righteous "trusts in his righteousness" – if he believes he is saved and he presumes upon God that there is nothing that can happen that would cause him to lose his salvation, as you do – and he then commits iniquity, what happens? Does he still "surely" live? Don’t think so. "In the iniquity that he has committed he shall die" – lose his salvation.

What 1 John 5:13 is saying, is that salvation is available to those who believe. But, nowhere does it say that someone will always believe just because they believed at one point in time. Again, see the passages I have already cited. In addition to those, what about the Parable of the Sower? There are different types of believers there. Some of the folks mentioned in that parable did indeed believe, for awhile, but then they lost their belief. Please explain that in terms of eternal security and absolute assurance?

And, what about all the "ifs" mentioned in the New Testament. You will be saved "if" you keep the commandments (Matt 19:17); "if" you abide in Christ (John 15:6-7); "if" you continue in God’s kindness (Rom 11:22); "if" you do not receive circumcision and fall under the old law (Gal 5:2-4). Can you explain all these conditions for salvation "if" your theology is true? None of these passages make sense, and neither do hundreds of others, if once a person has believed, they have absolute security of their salvation.

Mr. Weber:

I am sorry for you that you can’t have that same confidence.

John Martignoni:

I "can’t" have that same confidence?! Is that an infallible statement on your part? I will say again, what an incredibly arrogant thing to say. As I have demonstrated, as a result of your own theology, it is indeed likely that any given Catholic can have a much greater level of peace in Christ than any given non-Catholic.

I am sorry that you have brought your pre-determined beliefs to the Bible and thereby have to twist the Scriptures to make them say what you want them to say. And, I am sorry that you will not directly answer the questions that I have posed here and the arguments that I have made here.

In Conclusion

I don’t know if I will hear back from Mr. Weber or not, but if I do, then we will continue with this dialogue. If not, I will move on to other pastures…

Again, I hope this Easter is a very holy event in your life and the lives of your loved ones.

How to be added to, or removed from, the list

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.

$RemovalHTML$