Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #48

Back to Raymond Woodward. He has said that this will probably be his last reply to me. That’s fine, whether it is or it isn’t. If it is, I will move on to the next guy in line. His comments are in italics and mine are in bold, although I do have headers with our names for those who do not have the proper fonts come through in the email. It’s been suggested that I use a different font for the other guy than what I use for mine, but that would add a lot of time coding in the different fonts, so it really isn’t practical to do.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Raymond
John,

I think I finally understand two things in your theology: 1) there really is a large issue of authority to interpret scriptures, and that 2) your point is that salvation is originally gained by God’s mercy and grace through faith in Christ, but that it can subsequently be lost in the absence of appropriate works, right? Wrong? You tell us.

John
Regarding your first point on authority: Authority is THE issue, bar none, when it comes to matters of religion, and, in particular, when it comes to interpreting the scriptures. The question is: Who has the authority to decide what is and is not correct doctrine for a Christian? Does each individual Christian, based on their individual interpretations of Scripture, get to decide for themselves what is and is not correct doctrine? Does Raymond Woodward, based on his admittedly fallible personal interpretation of Scripture, get to decide for John Martignoni, and for one billion plus Catholics around the world, what is and is not correct doctrine? Who gets to decide these matters? Who has the authority to decide these matters?

And, what if there is a dispute between individual Christians as to what is and is not correct doctrine for a Christian? Who has the authority to decide matters of dispute between Christians on matters of doctrine? Or, on matters of biblical interpretation? Did our Lord leave us without a way to decide disputes in these matters? Did He really leave it up to each individual reading the Bible, no matter their level of education or intelligence or faith, to decide for themselves?

Or, do you, Raymond Woodward, claim to have such authority? If you do, please tell me who invested that authority in you? If you don’t claim such authority, then how is it you have the chutzpah to tell me, or anyone else for that matter, that our beliefs are contrary to the Bible? If you do not have the ability to infallibly interpret scripture (which you have admitted), then surely you will agree that your interpretations could be wrong, won’t you? And, if you haven’t been given the authority to decide matters relating to Scripture, then, again, how can you declare that I’m wrong…on anything?! You see, you also have a “large issue of authority” when it comes to interpreting Scripture, you simply don’t realize it.

Again, by what authority do you declare my interpretation of the Bible wrong and yours right? Who gave you such authority over me? Did Jesus give Raymond Woodward the authority to authentically interpret Scripture in such a way that I should yield my interpretation of the Bible to your interpretation of the Bible? If you can show me that He did, then I will indeed yield to your interpretation, but you cannot show me any such thing can you?

In other words, how dare you tell me that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong! How dare you say that the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Bible is wrong! Who appointed you the judge and jury in these matters? You may rightly say that you disagree with my interpretation, or with the Church’s interpretation, but you cannot say that our interpretations are wrong. You simply have no authority to do so. The basic question is, are all Christians right in their various interpretations of Scripture? If not, who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? By the fact that you are telling me that my biblical interpretations are incorrect, I am assuming that you feel you are the one who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong. But, if not you, then who?

Regarding your second point on salvation: My point is that salvation is freely given to us because of God’s grace and mercy through Baptism. Baptism can come about because of a person’s personal faith, or because of the faith of the person’s parents (as in the case of infant baptism). So, it is because of faith that one is baptized, but it is not by the individual’s faith that salvation is “gained”. It is not of our doing, but a gift of God through the workings of the Holy Spirit. In other words, as Catholics, we believe salvation is not “gained” by our faith or our works…it is a free gift given to us by God through Baptism.

And, this salvation is not subsequently lost because of the “absence of appropriate works.” If it is subsequently lost, it is lost through sin…whether sin of commission or sin of omission. By committing a mortal sin…a sin unto death…one separates himself from the Body of Christ and, in so doing, causes their salvation to be lost if that sin goes unrepented and unconfessed. Scripture is very clear that the wages of sin is death. Why you ignore that fact is beyond me.

Now, you might be thinking, “There you go again, John, putting words into my mouth…we don’t ignore the fact that the wages of sin is death.” Well, you might be thinking that, but, with all due respect, the end result of your theology is that you do indeed ignore the fact that the wages of sin is death. The Bible says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Your once saved always saved theology says, “Yes they will, as long as they’re believers.” The problem is, though, the Bible doesn’t give us any qualifiers…it says these folks will not inherit the kingdom.

Your theology argues that if they were truly saved, if they really had a “saving” faith vs. an “intellectual” faith, then they wouldn’t do these things, right? Well, what if someone who is a deacon of say, a Baptist church…someone who everyone knows is “saved”…what if this deacon cheats on his wife, ends up divorcing his wife, and then marrying the woman he committed adultery with? And, he never asks his wife for forgiveness, and never shows any signs of repentance for his sin? Is he saved, or not? Was he ever saved? This actually happened. And, when the wife went to the pastor to say that her husband should be removed as a deacon of the church because of his behavior, guess what the pastor told her? “It doesn’t affect his salvation.” So, Raymond, was he still saved? Or, was he never saved and he just thought he was?

Again, in your theological system, the wages of sin is not death. Does anyone go to Hell because of adultery? Does anyone go to Hell because of fornication? Because of homosexuality? Because of any sin mentioned in Scripture? Under your theology, the answer is, “No.” Under your theology, the only reason one goes to Hell is because they don’t have faith. So, for those without faith, the wages of sin is not death, because they are already dead due to their unbelief. The sin didn’t kill them, the unbelief did. And, for everyone who does have faith, the wages of sin is not death, because they’ve already had their one way ticket to Heaven punched, and ain’t nothin’ derailin’ that train! I will get into more on once saved always saved below.

Raymond
Regarding the infallibility of Roman Catholic doctrine, that is a monumental assertion with monumental implications. I’ve spent a good deal of time in the last week trying to determine specifically what that means and how the doctrine is supported from Catholic apologists, protestant ones, and secular sources. Remember that if I asserted that Baptist doctrine was infallible, which I don’t, you’d rightly demand that I prove it. The burden of proof is on you in this case, and “infallible” is a simple concept – there has never been and can never be any error in Roman Catholic doctrine.

I’d really rather skip this potentially incendiary topic, but I see now that it is central to our whole discussion. With all due respect and hoping not to offend, I just don’t believe you for four broad reason and several specific ones.

First and foremost is the matter of Biblical support. Two simple examples:

How do we get from Peter’s confession of Christ (the “rock” passage) and Peter’s appointment of Matthias to divinely maintained and uninterrupted Apostolic Succession? It’s not in The Bible unless you conflate bits of scripture, human traditions, “logic”, and pure assertions of somebody’s faith.

John
Actually, we see Apostolic Succession very clearly in the Bible. The first place is in Acts 1:20, which you allude to, “His office let another take.” In the King James Version, it says, “His bishopric let another take.” The Apostles held an “office”…the office of bishop. The very nature of an office tells us that the office holder might pass on, but the office doesn’t. As God’s Word says, “His office let another take.” That was true of Judas, so it was also true of Peter, John, James, Matthew, Matthias, Jude, Bartholomew, etc. And, as they went about ordaining bishops…people who held the office of bishop…then when those bishops died, others would be appointed to take their place. We see Paul putting Timothy into a position of authority. Do you think Timothy saw to it that someone else was ready to take his place in the event of his death?

I don’t know if you go to a church, but if you do, what happens if your pastor dies. Does your church disband, or do you get another pastor? Do you not have a succession of pastors? To say that the Bible doesn’t contain divinely maintained and uninterrupted Apostolic Succession is quite a stretch. Jesus said that He would be with the Apostles until the close of the age. Well, if the Apostles didn’t make it to the close of the age, how is it Jesus is with them until the close of the age? He is with them through their successors! I consider the fact that Christ is with them to the close of the age a bit of divine maintenance, don’t you?

In early Christian writings we see an uninterrupted succession of successors to Peter…it is historical fact. Look up on the internet and see what it says about the 265 bishops of Rome. If you want to dispute whether or not it is “divinely maintained,” that is one thing, but you cannot dispute the fact that Peter’s successors can be traced historically down to Benedict XVI. And, I would assert, that if the papacy is not divinely maintained, if it was left to just men to maintain it, then it would not exist today. (Infallibility will be discussed below.)

Raymond
Additionally, some of your doctrine about Mary is simply nowhere expressed or implied in the Bible. Bodily assumed into Heaven? That’s big, but where does it say that? And you accuse me of twisting and manipulating God’s Word?! Come on, John.

John
Well, looks like you’re pulling out all the stops for your last hurrah, eh? Throwing out the “Mary card,” are you?! Well, let me ask you, Raymond, is the bodily assumption of someone into Heaven opposed to the teaching of Scripture? Yes or no? I hope you say, “No,” because there are examples in the Bible of such. Does the Bible anywhere say that Mary was not assumed body and soul into Heaven? Yes or no? I hope you say, “No.” So, if the bodily assumption of someone into Heaven is not opposed to the Bible, and the Bible nowhere says that Mary was not assumed into Heaven, and, further, since the Bible tells me that there is a woman in Heaven, who has a body, and who has given birth to the child that is to rule all nations with a rod of iron (Revelation, chapter 12)…then why can’t I believe in the bodily assumption of Mary into Heaven? I believe the burden is on you to show that she wasn’t. I believe the burden is on you to tell me why I can’t believe what I believe?

You’re reasoning is, it’s not in the Bible, so I don’t believe it, right? Well, what is your belief regarding contraception…is it moral to use contraception or not? If you are like the vast majority of Protestants, you will say that it is moral to use contraception. The reasoning that I have heard from Protestants is that the Bible doesn’t speak on it, so it is acceptable to use. Is that your reasoning, as well? If it is, then I think you have a bit of a contradiction. On the one hand, you don’t believe in Mary’s Assumption because it is nowhere mentioned in the Bible – which means it is not okay. On the other hand, you believe in contraception (again, if you are like most Protestants on this) because it is nowhere mentioned in the Bible – which means it is okay. So, not being mentioned in the Bible is not okay in some circumstances, and it is okay in other circumstances. Hmmm.

I am not twisting nor am I manipulating anything, much less Scripture. Turn to Revelation 12, is the mother of the Redeemer mentioned there as being in Heaven with a crown of 12 stars on her head and the moon under her feet or not? “Well," you will probably say, "that woman simply represents Israel, or the Church,” or some other such thing. Which gets me back to the point on authority…by whose authority do you make such claims? By whose authority does your interpretation count for more than my interpretation?

Raymond
Second is the matter of logic. I can accept that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. I understand about the Ordinary and Sacred Magesteria, Papal Infallibility versus Impeccability, and doctrine pronounced ex cathedra or not.

But at the end of it all, Catholic dogma leans heavily upon your Sacred Traditions, not exclusively the Bible, right? And validity of Sacred Traditions rest, in part, on Apostolic Succession which rests at least partially on Sacred Tradition because the Bible doesn’t actually say that, right? It’s partially circular logic.

John
Are you admitting that you believe no authority has been passed down from the Apostles to the leaders of the Church today? Is that your belief? What a scary thought! Then, if we have no Apostolic authority in the Church today, by what authority do you teach? By what authority does your pastor teach?

Our dogma leans entirely on the Word of God as passed down through written and oral tradition in the early Church. For scripture references, see 2 Thes 2:15 – “…stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Tim 2:2 – “…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” 1 Cor 11:2 – “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” 1 Thes 2:13 – “And we thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you HEARD from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the Word of God.” In fact, what you call the Bible, was actually part of our Sacred Tradition. So, how come you accept part of our Sacred Tradition…the written Word of God, but not the rest of our Sacred Tradition…the Apostolic Traditions passed on by Paul and the other Apostles?

By the way, you better be careful with your “logic” here, because you’re skating on very thin ice. Who told you the Bible is the inspired Word of God? What witness attests to that fact? Who decided which books should be included in the New Testament and which should not be? Does the Bible tell you which books should be in the Bible? Absolutely not. So, if you go by the Bible alone, how do you know which books should be in the Bible? Talk about getting caught in a circular reasoning trap!

We can historically trace our line of bishops back to the Apostles. It is historical fact. That historical fact doesn’t depend on Sacred Tradition, it is what it is. The authenticity of the Bible, however, depends on Sacred Tradition. Again, you cannot answer the questions I just asked you about the Bible using the Bible, can you? You depend on Sacred Tradition for the answers to those questions, you just don’t realize it, and probably won’t admit it.

Raymond
Then there’s the problem of simple recorded history — Pope Leo X and his indulgences, Honorious I and his monothelitism, vicious abuses of power such as visited on John Huss (for whom Pope John Paul in 1999 expressed “deep regret from the cruel death inflicted” and proposed an inquiry into the removal of the “heretic” charge), etc. etc. Separating all that from doctrinal or papal infallibility is, to borrow your line, just too convenient. Huss was burned at the stake for doctrinal heresy. Galileo Galilei was imprisoned and tortured for 19 years for the “doctrinal heresy” of demonstrating that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

John
In one place, you say you understand the difference between infallibility and impeccability, yet here you get confused as to infallibility and impeccability. The fact that someone…even a Pope…commits a sin, has nothing to do with infallibility. Regarding Galileo, he was not, to my knowledge, imprisoned and tortured for 19 years. He was put under house arrest – in his own house. And, it was not for the “heresy” of demonstrating that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Copernicus advanced that theory years before Galileo and the Church had no problem with him. Galileo made two mistakes – he published a book that ridiculed the Pope, who, at the time, was not just Pope but ruler of the state…so it just wasn’t something one should do; and, the other thing he did, was to say the Bible had errors in it. Do you believe it has errors in it? If not, then you would agree with the Church regarding Galileo. Now, you may not agree with the punishment of house arrest, but, you’re trying to judge the 17th century using 21st century standards.

Raymond
Fourthly, there is a practical problem: I suppose Pope Leo’s indulgences never made it into the Sacred Magesterium and John Huss was later absolved of heresy. Meanwhile, a lot of ordinary Catholics probably went broke trying to buy Uncle Herbie out of Purgatory, and John Huss died a barbaric death for doctrinal heresy, despite promises of protection from the Council of Constance. How are you to know until it’s too late?

John
Indulgences are a part of the teaching of the Catholic Church…selling indulgences is not. Again, you confuse impeccability and infallibility even though you earlier claimed to understand the difference.

Raymond
We’ve already touched on simple longevity as a validating criterion. If antiquity establishes validity, then we both need to hurry down to the nearest Jewish synagogue and convert. At least those guys had stone tablets.

John
Actually, you are not quite right on that. The Jewish faith of today, is nothing like it was in Jesus’ time. No temple sacrifices. No priesthood. No high priest. No Chair of Moses. Can you give me the succession of the high priesthood from the 1st century to present day? Of course not. Can I give you the succession of Peter from the 1st century to present day? Of course I can. The papacy is the oldest institution on the planet that I am aware of. Now, that, in and of itself, does not “prove” anything, but considering that every Pope is a sinner, I would think that there just might be some help from above to keep it going.

Raymond
To put it as politely as possible, I’ll stick with what I can find in the Bible.

John
To put it as politely as possible, you’re sticking with your fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of the Bible.

Raymond
I also perceive that this is emblematic of our different views of eternal salvation. You give the impression that your ultimate, final faith lies in what your church says about the Bible. That has to be true is Roman Catholic doctrine is infallible to you. Fair enough. My ultimate, final faith is in the Bible, itself, apart from any other traditions, additions, extrapolations of whatever sort.

John
Again, not really so. Your final faith is in your ability to rightly and accurately interpret the Bible. Remember what scripture says: “All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes…” My faith is in the Body of Christ, the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. It is so because of my reading of the Bible. I did not come to the Bible believing everything that the Church taught. I came to believe everything the Church taught because of the Bible.

Raymond
Regarding my authority to interpret scripture, a good place to start is in John again, specifically John 16: 5-16. When Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide His followers into “all truth”, I don’t think He was exaggerating, and He said nothing to indicate that only one or a few followers would be recipients of that promise. He didn’t say that we would all be perfected in an instant. I certainly am not, but your doctrine of Papal Infallibility wasn’t codified until 1870, either – not exactly instantaneous doctrinal perfection starting with Peter. As I read it, that doctrine didn’t even become widespread until the rise of the Medieval High Papacy and was long opposed by the “concilliarists” among your bishops.

John
Are you saying that all Christians have the Holy Spirit guiding them when they read Scripture? If so, how come you can’t claim infallibility? How come everyone can’t claim infallibility? And, if all Christians have the Holy Spirit guiding them when they interpret Scripture, how come you, as you have previously admitted, don’t believe everything that other Protestants teach? If they are guided by the Holy Spirit, why don’t you believe them? If you are guided by the Holy Spirit, why do they disagree with you?

First of all, please tell me where I have ever claimed “instantaneous doctrinal perfection starting with Peter?” You’re making up new things here. The doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t “codified” until the 4th century…yet, you believe it, don’t you? Well, so did the early Church, but the particulars weren’t worked out until the 4th century with a couple of Church Councils. That doesn’t mean the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t true. Just so with Papal Infallibility. Quite often, as I’m sure you’re aware, the Church didn’t pronounce dogmatically on matters until those matters were being challenged. Whether the challenge came in the 4th century or the 14th century or the 19th century or even today. The Church never had to defend its teachings on marriage being the union of one man and one woman, until the 20th century. Does that mean that her teachings on marriage are somehow less legitimate? By your logic, it does. And, whether certain bishops approved or disapproved of a particular teaching is irrelevant to the teaching on infallibility. Again, you say you understand these things, but you really don’t.

Raymond
In all this, I know that I will ere, fail, have to repent, and repeat that process over, and over, and over until I die. But by His grace, for His glory, and by His power, I will grow toward the image of Christ. Along the way, a big part of that growing process will necessarily be working at whatever The Lord puts before me, particularly working through His Word. His Word tells me that there will be reward and judgment in this life and in eternity for my good or bad work, but that the end result is settled. Therein we can find the “inexpressible joy” described in I Peter, plus gratitude and encouragement to keep going/growing.

I’ve already mentioned a lot of scriptures that point to the finality of salvation. You disagree. OK, so I will end my argument with this:

In John 10, Jesus twice each identified Himself as “the gate” and “the Good Shepherd”. The ‘Good Shepherd’ or ‘Chief Shepherd’ motif reappears often enough, notably in Hebrews 13:20, I Peter 5:4; I think it’s familiar to us both.

I do not believe that Jesus has any intention of standing before His Father’s throne one day and saying something like, “Well, Father, I’m sorry, I know you gave those sheep to me, but they didn’t want to stay, so I opened The Gate and bid them goodbye. No one snatched them out of my hand. I just let them go because they had other plans.” When Jesus said that His sheep know His voice and follow Him, I believe He meant it. When He said His sheep will not follow a stranger (in a Greek verb form that denotes indefinitely, habitually following a stranger), I suspect that He meant that, too.

Somehow, I believe that Jesus is, in fact, a really good shepherd, rather like the one described in Psalm 23, not much in the habit of letting stubborn sheep wander off to eternal destruction.

When Jesus said that all who entered through Him – the Gate – would be saved in the same verb tense used in Ephesians 2:8-10, i.e. permanently, He wasn’t exaggerating or hiding the “exception clause” that your doctrine demands for those who choose to walk away.

When Jesus said in John 6:35-40 said that He would accomplish His Father’s will to accept, keep, and “raise up on the last day” all that The Father sent Him, I don’t believe that He was over-advertising Himself. I gravely doubt that He somehow forgot to mention that critical “exception clause”.

I really don’t know how else to explain the parables of the One Lost Coin and the One Lost Sheep except in this light.

I really don’t believe that Jesus our High Priest in Heaven (throughout the Book of Hebrews) who “…lives always to make intercession for them (believers)…” (Hebrews 7:25) will ever have to admit defeat before the Throne of Judgment (also frequently described in Greek terms used of judicial proceedings, much like the term “justification).

I really am convinced that The Father gives the Holy Spirit as the believers’ pledge and seal, just like it says in II Cor 1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, that the Holy Spirit is a perfectly adequate seal, and that The Father intends to honor His pledge. I don’t believe that Paul forgot to mention an “exception clause” in those passages, either.

I also believe that the Holy Spirit who intercedes on our behalf before The Father, who testifies with our spirits that we are “sons of God” (Romans 8) is an adequate witness and advocate and a far better qualifier of my spirituality than any list of works performed.

Please take a moment to pray to God for discernment, then go read Ephesians 1, particularly Vs 13-14 and what it says about the Holy Spirit. Then maybe have another look at Galations 3. God went to some considerable trouble to write the Bible, so read it!! Think about it! Pray over it!

John
Count how many times you said “I believe” in the paragraphs above. Lots! Well, with all due respect, why should what you believe have any impact on what I believe? Again, where is your authority? Now, regarding the “exception clause” as you call it. There actually are a lot of exception clauses in the New Testament. You simply choose not to see them. Matt 6:14-15, “For IF you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Does that apply only to the unsaved? If so, where does it say that? Well, if we look at Matthew 18:23-35, it applies to the saved. The debtor can’t pay the debt. His Lord has mercy on him and cancels the debt (he’s saved!). The forgiven servant doesn’t likewise show mercy to a fellow servant. The Lord calls him back and revokes His mercy and has the reprobate handed over to the jailers until he should pay every penny…which he can’t pay…so he’s there forever.

Romans 11:17-23, the wild branches (Gentiles) that are grafted into the olive tree (Christ) will remain “PROVIDED you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.” John 15:1-6, the branches (Christians) of the vine (Christ) will be cut off, cast forth to wither, then be gathered and burned if they do not bear good fruit. Heb 6:4-8, “For it is impossible to restore to repentance those who have once been enlightened…IF they then commit apostasy…” Gal 5:2-4, “IF you receive circumcision…You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” 1 Tim 5:8, “IF anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” I could go on…and on…and on.

1 Cor 4:3-5, “…I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore, do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes…” Yet, you are pronouncing judgment on yourself. You are saved. You’re going to Heaven. You are presuming upon the Lord. Something which Paul himself didn’t do. 1 Peter 1:17, “And IF you invoke as Father Him Who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile.” Phil 1:12, “…work out your on salvation in fear and trembling.” Heb 10:29, “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was SANCTIFIED [that means he was a Christian], and outraged the Spirit of grace?” Do you really think the person described here goes to Heaven? 1 Cor 15:1, “Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand [Christians], by which you are saved, IF you hold it fast,” [exception clause].

Paul himself didn’t seem to have this “assurance” of salvation that you are so confident of: Phil 3:10-14, “…that, IF possible, I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own…I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” 1 Cor 9:24-27, “Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you MAY obtain it…I do not run aimlessly…but I pommel my body and subdue it, LEST after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”

Ezek 33:13-16, “Though I say to the righteous [saved, right?] that he shall surely live [assurance of salvation, right? God has told him he shall surely live] YET [exception clause] if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die.” If he dies in iniquity, that isn’t a good thing is it? Yet, he was righteous and he was told by God that he shall surely live. Once saved, always saved? Don’t think so.

Regarding the parables of the Good Shepherd and the Lost Coin. Those parables make no sense under your theology. How could a sheep be “lost” if once saved always saved is true? How could the coin be “lost” if once saved always saved is true? Who is the lost sheep Jesus goes to find? Can’t be one of the saved, can it? They can’t be lost, can they? Can’t be one of the unsaved, they’re not one of the sheep, are they? And, if none of the sheep can get out, as you proclaim above, how did it get lost? Sorry, but your theology makes these parables a load of nonsense.

Also, you didn’t address, at all, the parable of the Prodigal Son. Didn’t the Father allow the son to leave home? You seem to say that can’t happen. The Good Shepherd would never open the gate and say to the sheep, “Go ahead and leave if you want to.” Well, the Father in the parable of the Prodigal Son did, didn’t he? What Father is the parable actually referring to? And, how is the Prodigal Son referred to by the Father? As being in no danger of losing his salvation no matter how much he sinned? No. As being still saved even if he has backslidden a bit? No. The Father describes the prodigal son as being “dead!” Dead!!! Fits Catholic theology perfectly. Fits once saved always saved theology not at all. You seem to think that Jesus will keep us against our wills. Nowhere does the Bible say such a thing. If we are part of the family, and we want to leave…He lets us go. You have a big problem with the prodigal son.

Finally, in regards to this, let me ask you this question. When Adam and Eve were created, were they saved or were they unsaved? They were saved, right? I mean, they spoke directly to God. He walked in the garden where they were, didn’t He? So, they were saved. Yet, they sinned. Not just any sin, either. They sinned THE sin…changed all of history. Changed everything. And, what happened? Were they still allowed into the garden? Absolutely not. They got tossed out of the garden because of their sin, even though they were originally saved. And, let’s examine their sin a bit more closely. God tells them that if they eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they will die. But, who comes along and tells them otherwise? Who comes along and says, “You will not die?” Satan. Satan was teaching once saved always saved in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve bit on his lie…and they were expelled from the garden. The very first lie of Satan as recorded in the Bible is the lie of once saved always saved. That, if they sin, they will not die. You need to consider that very carefully.

Raymond
To argue that salvation is an incomplete process – that it can be gained, then lost – is unavoidably arguing that Jesus is actually a rather mediocre shepherd, that the Holy Spirit is an unreliable seal, that The Father just might not keep His pledge, and that Jesus and Paul repeatedly failed to mention the “exception clause” for back-sliding believers. This, John, is a reduction to absurdity just as in Hebrews 6, based upon the same mistaken premise that salvation once gained, can be lost, then hopefully regained, re-lost, etc.

John
Here you put up yet another straw man. To argue that one can indeed lose their salvation is to argue none of those things you mentioned. It is to argue that Jesus will not interfere with our free will. It is to argue that we can sin, and can sin a sin “unto death.” It is to argue that the wages of sin is death and it is to argue all the other things the Word of God teaches about the consequences of sin. It is to argue that we are imperfect. Again, I refer to the story of the Prodigal Son and all the other scripturally-based arguments I have made above.

Raymond
It’s much easier to honor the Bible’s imperatives about good works some other way.

John
I agree with you that it is much easier to honor the Bible’s “imperatives” about good works in some other way. Which is why you choose to do so. Jesus tells us that “the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Your way is indeed easy. Mine is not.

Raymond
You’re absolutely correct that my interpretation is fallible, but I’m absolutely certain that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as revealed in The Word are not, and they are ultimately in the business of preserving their sheep fold.

John
I refer back to all of my arguments above. I just wish to ask, again, if your interpretation is fallible, then why are you so sure you’re right in your interpretation of any given scripture passage?

Raymond
By God’s standards, we’re MUCH more like sheep that most of us care to admit, but I still think that your concept of God is too small. When I made analogy to my son’s adoption, you challenged my thoughts about protecting my child, asking if I would protect him as an adult.

Do you see yourself as an adult in God’s eyes, by His standards?

John
How do I see myself in God’s eyes? Can’t answer that. How am I supposed to know how I am seen in God’s eyes? That would be presumption on my part. Regarding my concept of God being too small, I would say that you truly don’t have a clue as to what my concept of God is. My concept of God is a God Who does not force me to do something against my will. My concept of God is like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son who allows his child to leave to follow his own path if the child so desires…even if the path is one that leads to death.

Raymond
Wouldn’t you rather put your faith entirely in the Christ who meant it when He said, “It is finished!” and took a wretched criminal to Heaven with Him that very day, and in His Word? There is a big risk that by putting your faith primarily in your church, you might fail to put it where it counts, or be dragged away from a precious, intimate relationship with God Almighty into some legalistic drudgery. I said "might fail”; don’t misquote me here.

John
You still don’t understand, do you, Raymond? I put all of my trust in Him and in His Word and in His Church which is His Body…rather than in myself and my ability to accurately interpret the Bible. The fact that I believe in an infallible authority established by Christ Himself, an authority which the Scripture very clearly speaks of (see Matt 16:19; Matt 18:15-18; 1 Tim 3:15; 1 John 4:6; Luke 10:16…just to name a few verses), gives me much greater comfort than you can ever truly have relying upon your own, man-made, fallible, non-authoritative opinions and interpretations of what you think Scripture is telling you. What if by relying upon your own interpretations, you have deceived yourself, Raymond? What if by your teachings you are deceiving others? Have you truly considered these things…after all, you are not infallible.

Raymond
You can paddle your own boat if you prefer, but I’ll gratefully take a space in the Ark – Christ – by His provision and grace. A spot in the bilge seems appropriate for somebody like me, but I’ll take it. The Bible clearly holds out the same invitation to anyone who will truly repent and commit themselves entirely to Christ.

John
I am not the one paddling my own boat. You are the one relying on his own judgment in matters of salvation. I am relying upon the pillar and bulwark of the truth…the Church.

Raymond
(By the way, having faith might be construed as “a work”, but Ephesians 2: 8 says, “…you have been saved by faith – and this not of yourselves, it is a gift from God….” Repentance feels more like work to me, but it’s actually the result of the work of the Holy Spirit (conviction), so break that down however you like.)

I’ve tried hard to avoid misrepresenting your words though I’m not so sure you’ve done likewise in the past. Hopefully I’ll be allowed to speak for mine this time. Quite frankly, much of your last reply and representation of what I expressed are 100% your words, your thoughts, your distortions, not mine. I won’t bother to address them all. But if you really don’t know, go reread what I wrote about infant salvation, baptism, canonization of scripture, Catholics going to Heaven, why “everyone isn’t saved” (your words), the Son being "merely an "effect"" (your words), my supposed claim that the Bible’s meaning is dependent upon who reads it (your words), Jesus “poor choices” of the disciples (your words), the Body not receiving merit (your distortion), and the list goes on. If you disagree, just say so. If I’ve misunderstood your doctrine, just say so. That’s constructive. There’s too much at stake here to play word games.

By the way, I think I did address James 2:26, though not by name. I dropped the scriptures you mentioned in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel because I think we aren’t talking about initial salvation by works anymore, are we?

John
I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to James 2:26. The fact is, you did not give me your interpretation of James 2:26 nor James 2:24. You specifically mentioned the other verses in James that were discussed, but not those two. Can you not just give me, in your own words, what those two verses mean? What is your interpretation of those two verses? “For as the body apart from the soul is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” The analogy is that body and soul are both necessary for life, so faith and works are both necessary for life. Faith is the body, works are the spirit. That’s my take on it, please give me yours. And, your take on James 2:24 as well?

Raymond
I never said, implied, nor do I believe that 1) works are unimportant, 2) that salvation is cheap, 3) that Catholics can’t go to Heaven, 4) that repentance ever becomes unnecessary in this life, 5) that I ever was or ever will be infallible, or 6) that I need to be. Don’t believe me! Go read The Bible for yourself, but do so with an earnest, open heart.

John
Actually, you have implied that Catholics can’t go to Heaven. You have stated that if we believe as we believe regarding salvation…if we don’t believe in salvation by faith alone and in once saved always saved…then we won’t get to Heaven. If someone believes in those things, they are not Catholic. You may not believe that salvation is cheap, but the result of your theology is that it is indeed cheap…at least for you. If you aren’t infallible, then, once again, why are you trying to teach me these things as if you infallibly know them to be true? If you aren’t infallible, then you could be wrong on all of this, couldn’t you? Yet, even though you could be wrong, you persist in teaching. I would reconsider doing so if I were relying on myself for what I teach.

Raymond
You never really answered two of my questions: Did Jesus’ sacrifice make full atonement for your sins, once for all? You said “Yes”, but then followed with, “If so then how come not all men are saved.”, as if to imply “No”. So, which is it?

John
I said “yes,” and then asked you a question. I am not implying “no,” I am asking you a question. Yes, Jesus’ sacrifice made full atonement for my sins…He made full atonement for all men’s sins. Thus my question to you…why aren’t all men saved? Your theology doesn’t handle the question well, mine does.

Raymond
And: How will you know when you’ve done enough good works? How many are enough? How many bad ones are one too many? You tried to turn it around on me, but that didn’t make sense because I’m not counting on me. I don’t trust me. I trust the Good Shepherd.

John
Tap…tap…tappity tap…tap tap tappity…How do you know if you have a saving faith, or merely an intellectual faith? You are the one who brought up the concept of there being a distinction along these lines. How can one know if he has a saving faith, or merely is operating under the delusion that he is saved because he actually has an intellectual faith? The question is valid and is very important, because, according to you, an intellectual faith doesn’t save you. So, again, how does one know which kind of faith they have? Are there not people who have an intellectual faith who believe that they actually have a saving faith? If you answered, “Yes,” how do you know that you aren’t one of those people? 1 Cor 10:12, “Therefore, let any one who thinks that he stands, take heed lest he fall.”

Raymond
I think I’ve said far more than enough, probably far too much. I genuinely do appreciate your time and you thoughts, whether we agree or not. And I do genuinely wish you well, John. Take care and God bless.

RW

John
I have also enjoyed our little chat and I very much appreciate your time and thoughts. And I will continue to pray for you and yours.

God bless!

John

In Conclusion

Please forward this to anyone you think would be itnerested and please let them know about all of our free apologetics materials at www.biblechristiansociety.com.

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.

$RemovalHTML$

Share this newsletter on: