There are many doctrines within Christianity upon which Catholics and Protestants simply don’t see eye-to-eye: we’ll read the same passage differently, or Catholics will cite to a passage or tradition that Protestants don’t consider authoritative. Those disputes can be hard to sort out (particularly if we can’t even agree upon whether or not the Church has the authority to settle such questions). But there are a couple of doctrines in which the common Protestant position is literally based upon a logical fallacy. Here’s one of those:
Perseverance of the Saints and 1 John 2:19
Suppose that you and I are at a neighborhood association meeting when we see several people, including a friendly neighbor of ours, get up and leave early. It’s disruptive and we’re surprised that our neighbor (a surgeon, and ordinarily very professional) would do something like this. So you ask him about it directly, and report back to me, “He left the meeting early, because he had to perform an emergency surgery. If he hadn’t have had the surgery, he would have stayed the whole time.” I respond, “Ah, I see. Therefore, everyone who left the meeting early must have had to perform an emergency surgeries.”
Of course, you would immediately recognize my conclusion as irrational and ridiculous. Just because this was true for one person or one group, that doesn’t mean that this same explanation is true of everyone else. This is essentially an “illicit contrary,” which is to say that it’s actually a logical fallacy. And yet we find Protestants committing this fallacy quite commonly in defending the doctrine of perseverance of the Saints (closely related to the idea of “once saved, always saved”). It’s one of two major camps within Protestant thought. R.C. Sproul, who subscribes to it, explains the difference within Protestantism this way:
Generally speaking, Arminian theology teaches it is possible to be converted genuinely and then later fall away from faith permanently. Reformed theology, on the other hand, teaches that all those with saving faith will persevere and never lose their salvation. Believers might waver in their profession, but over the course of their lives they will persist in the good works that evidence justification and finally be glorified.
Reformed theologians – people smart enough to know better – tend to ground their belief in perseverance of the Saints in 1 John 2:18-19, which says:
Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.
By “antichrists,” John means “he who denies that Jesus is the Christ,” or “he who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22). And so in v. 19 he says that these individuals left the Church because “they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.”
Our friend left the neighborhood meeting because of an emergency surgery, or else he would have stayed. These antichrists left the Church because they never truly believed, or else they would have stayed. Both claims are specific to particular individuals, explaining why they left, and why they would have otherwise stayed. In both cases, we learn exactly nothing about why everyone else left. Maybe everybody else was running off to emergency surgeries. Maybe everyone else left the Church because they never truly believed. But absolutely nothing that we’ve said so far proves (or even suggests) these conclusions.
And yet a surprising number of Reformed theologians make exactly this logical error. Sproul, who I mentioned earlier, bases his whole case for perseverance of the Saints off of this misreading of 1 John 2:19:
Some profess Christ and later fall away, persuading many of the Arminian view. Verse 19 of today’s passage, however, tells us that when someone falls away, he never possessed saving faith. As we observed in 1 John 2:12–14, it was John’s audience that had true faith. It was this audience that believed in the incarnation, personal holiness, and love for other Christians. Had those who left the community truly been a part of it, they would have remained in this orthodox confession. They had but a transitory faith and did not hold to their confession. Thus their membership and conversion were false. All of those who abandon Christianity never knew Jesus in the first place. John Calvin comments on these verses that “they who fall away had never been thoroughly imbued with the knowledge of Christ, but had only a light and a transient taste of it.”
Some who call Jesus “Lord” are not true believers (Matt. 7:21). Faith-professers (the visible church) are not necessarily faith-possessers (the invisible church). Those who fall away finally never really knew Jesus in the first place.
Sproul and Calvin are making the same logical fallacy, that since some fell away for this reason (never being true Christians), all fall away for this reason. You simply can’t conclude from “some A’s are B” that “all A’s are B.” Just because some cats are grey doesn’t mean that all cats are grey. Just because some people only left because they were never really Christians doesn’t mean that everyone who left did so because they were never really Christians.
What’s most striking about this particular example is that Sproul rightly cites Matthew 7:21 as evidence that “Some who call Jesus “Lord” are not true believers.” But he would never conclude from this that this is true of everyone who calls Jesus “Lord.” Why? Because on some level, he’s got to realize that you can’t get from “some A’s are B” to “all A’s are B.”
Sam Storms, past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, makes the same error in his commentary on 1 John 2:19, but in the opposite direction:
The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints – Abiding or continuance or endurance is the sign of the saved, just as apostasy is the evidence of initial unbelief. Note the emphasis of the phrase: “for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us . . .” (cf. Heb. 3:6,14). The presence of genuine faith (“of us”) implies (necessitates) perseverance.
Storms is saying that since these antichrists would have stayed in the Church if they had been true Christians, therefore anyone who has genuine faith will stay in the Church. Go back to the neighbor example: he would have stayed in the meeting if he hadn’t have had an emergency surgery to attend to. Does that mean that everyone without an emergency surgery to attend to would remain in the meeting? Of course not. It’s another variation of the logical fallacy, moving from “some A’s are B” to “all A’s are B.”
So the Reformed case for perseverance of the Saints is literally built upon a logical fallacy traceable back to the Reformer John Calvin. This isn’t a case where we have to carefully weigh the Scriptural arguments for and against the doctrine, because it’s just a logically unsound argument. But in fact, the Scriptures are quite clear against this doctrine.
The Catholic Case Against “Perseverance of the Saints”
In Mark 16:16, Jesus says that “he who believes and is baptized will be saved.” In Acts 8:12-13, we hear of a man, Simon, who believes and is baptized, but who then falls away. Unlike the folks St. John is talking about in 1 John 2, he doesn’t fall away because he’s an antichrist who only pretended to accept the Incarnation. His fall is the sin of simony (it’s named after him), since he tries to buy the ability to call down the Holy Spirit in the laying on of hands (Acts 8:19), leading to this powerful confrontation between St. Peter and Simon in Acts 8:20-24:
But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”
And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”
He was saved, but then lost his salvation, and his eternal state is never revealed by Scripture. That’s a clear example of the kind of individual that Calvin and the others claims doesn’t exist. Where Acts 8 gives us one individual example, 2 Peter 2 speaks more generally, when it talks about how there “will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1). Peter then compares them to the fallen angels who were saved, but who then rejected salvation and damned themselves (2 Pet. 2:4), He concludes (2 Peter 2:20-22):
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.
That could scarcely be clearer – these individuals, once saved by being ransomed by Christ, reject His salvation. They don’t do it by denying the Incarnation, like the individuals in 1 John 2. Rather, St. Peter is referring to “those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority” (2 Pet. 2:10). Much more could be said in favor of the Catholic view against perseverance of the Saints, but again, the case for it largely involves conflating “some” with “all” ex-Christians.
While this is one obvious case of a theological position being grounded in a logical fallacy, it’s hardly the only one. Next time, we’ll look at why advocates of Sola Scriptura (the belief that “the Bible alone” is what we need for the faith).
P.S. Episode 5 of The Catholic Podcast is out today: “Lent Through The Eyes of John the Baptist.“
P.P.S. Doug Beaumont argues that the above is better classified as an illicit conversion rather than an illicit contrary. That might well be right – it is, in either case, a logical fallacy.
He could also be refer to “us” as the class of those predestined to eternal life. They left because they were not part of the elect. This does not mean that they were never regenerate believers, but that they were only predestined to walk in a state of grace for a while, and are not part of that number who have their names written on the Lamb’s book of life.
Isn’t it true that those who don’t have their names written in the Lamb’s book of life have been positively predestined for reprobation?
I mean, what little I know about Reformed theology is that only the decretally elect are justified and that justification, once acquired, is never lost; the justified necessarily persevere.
Taylor,
But the point is, even if that were true (and the most you can actually say is that John doesn’t deny this possibility, not that he actually says it), you couldn’t logically conclude from that to say that therefore anyone who ever falls away did so because they were never truly saved or never truly Christian.
Whenever I hear “Perseverance of the Saints”, I am reminded of St. Augustine’s treatise “On the Gift of Perseverance”, where his major point is: Whatever state you find yourself in now, you’re not done yet—pray for the grace of persevering to the end.
thank you
So, two thoughts here:
1) It seems to me that the key question is, “Why does John say that, if they had been of us, they would have continued with us?” It seems to me that you’re reading that as only something necessarily true of these particular men – that is, that there might be other men who would have been of us, and yet would not have continued with us, and it’s only these particular men for whom membership would imply continuation.
Linguistically, that’s a valid reading. Logically, I don’t understand it at all; why should it be the case that these particular men would have persevered had they ever been of us? John’s presenting this statement as evidence to his readers that these men were never part of the church; what is the basis for this claim, if it’s not a general truth that “those who are of us, whoever they might be, continue with us?” What sense would it make for this claim to be applicable only to these men?
2) That said, I’m not sure I agree with your claim that “Reformed theologians – people smart enough to know better – tend to ground their belief in perseverance of the Saints in 1 John 2:18-19.” If I was called on to defend this view, I might go to John 6:37-39: “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.” There’s an explicit link there: giving necessitates coming to salvation, and the Father’s will for the Son is that the Son lose none of those given. Either all those given are indeed not lost, or the Son must fail to accomplish the Father’s will for him, the very thing for which he was incarnated; surely the latter is untenable. Or again, verse 44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” Those drawn will be raised up at the last day – there are no conditions on this guarantee.
Or I might go to Romans 8:29-30: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” There’s a necessary sequence of events there: if you were predestined to be conformed to the Son, then you were called; if you were called, then you were justified; if you were justified, you were glorified.” Can a man be a Christian without being justified? Surely not – but there can be no man who was justified who is not also ultimately glorified. Indeed, that glorification is so certain that it can be spoken of in the past tense – and how could it not be, since this chain starts with God setting the destinies of men?
This is a theme that continues in the following verses: “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns?” What possible charge can be brought against those for whom God gave his Son, whom God has declared justified – and if no charge can be brought, how will they not be saved?
Let me stop there, before broadening this conversation overmuch – but I think it is reductive to present this as the linchpin of the Reformed position.
Irked,
1) In context, John is explaining why certain individuals left the Church and denied the Incarnation, and he concludes it’s because they were never convinced or fully on-board in the first place. That’s a diagnosis of particular cases. In saying that they would have stayed if they had been “part of us,” he’s not making a universal declaration, any more than he’s making a universal declaration in saying why they left (in both cases, explicitly not a universal claim). He’s simply saying that the only reason they left is lack of authentic interior conversion. That doesn’t mean that this is true of anyone (much less everyone) else.
2) In this post, I showed how Calvin, R. C. Sproul, and ETS past president Sam Storms all cited to this passage as proof of the Reformed position. I don’t think it’s a disproof of this to say that you wouldn’t have defended the Reformed position that way. Surely, Calvin is a better representative of Reformed thought than you?
In any case, I actually agree with you that looking to some of the confusing passages in John would make for better proof-texts for the Reformed positions, at least in the sense of being harder to debunk. Jesus and St. Paul use similar terms differently. “The elect” in Pauline language literally means “the called,” but Jesus doesn’t use calling-language identically (see, e.g., Matthew 22:14 for one obvious example). That requires carefully parsing through linguistic and theological nuance, which is both why it’s a harder claim to disprove, and a harder claim to prove. If you assume certain things about the way that Jesus is using language in John’s Gospel, you can get to the Reformed conclusion. I think I agree with your prudence in not turning this into a conversation on those passages, though, simply because it’s much more complex.
I.X.,
Joe
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the response!
1) I think that understates John’s argument. He’s not merely saying, “Well, they left because they weren’t part of us” – he’s not just giving the reason for their leaving, as you say here. He’s saying that their leaving is proof that they were not part of the church: “their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” Why should that be so? What sense does it make to say that for these men – exclusively, not as part of a general case – leaving would be proof that they were never part of the church?
That’s the problem, I think, with your emergency surgery analogy. No one would say, on seeing men leaving a party, “Their going out from us showed that they had emergency surgery,” because there are lots of other reasons someone might leave a party. The statement only makes sense if there can be no reason for these men to leave except the cause given.
So by contrast, this makes perfect sense as a proof if there is a general rule: those part of the body do not go out from the body. I think Calvinists read that as the implicit rule to which John appeals; while you’re correct that it is not explicitly declared here, I don’t think it’s a fallacy to read it as implicit in his arguments. (An error, perhaps, but not the particular error for which you’re arguing.)
2) I agree, lots of Reformed people cite it in defense; I would, too. That’s a much weaker claim than saying their belief is grounded on this verse. (I suspect a lot of Reformed people appeal to it specifically because it’s sometimes used as an argument against perseverance: “Look, people going out from the church!”)
Here’s John Piper on the subject: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/tulip-part-1#Perseverance. He appeals to Romans 8, John 10, 1 Peter 1 and 5, Jude 1, 1 Thessalonians 5, 1 Corinthians 1, Ephesians 1… He doesn’t even come to 1 John 2 under the heading of “Those Whom God Has Justified Will Be Kept by God for Final Salvation.” Here’s James White on the same topic: http://vintage.aomin.org/eternalsecurity.html. Again, he goes to John 6, to Ephesians 1 – but not to 1 John 2 at all. The Canons of Dort (http://forms.reformed.org.ua/Dordt%20Canons/all/) appeal to Romans 8 (again), and 1 Corinthians 1, and John 10, and even 1 John 3, but not 1 John 2. The 1689 Baptist Confession (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/baptist_1689.html) references Romans 8 and John 10 and many others – and, yes, 1 John 2, but as one verse among dozens.
I’m not denying by any means that Reformed Christians appeal to this verse, but I think you’re attributing to it a centrality that’s not the way we think about it, and I think that’s a lot broader than just me saying, “Well, that’s not how I would do it.”
(I made a reply here, but it looks like I put in too many links; it’s blocked. Here’s a reposting minus links.)
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the response!
1) I think that understates John’s argument. He’s not merely saying, “Well, they left because they weren’t part of us” – he’s not just giving the reason for their leaving, as you say here. He’s saying that their leaving is proof that they were not part of the church: “their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” Why should that be so? What sense does it make to say that for these men – exclusively, not as part of a general case – leaving would be proof that they were never part of the church?
That’s the problem, I think, with your emergency surgery analogy. No one would say, on seeing men leaving a party, “Their going out from us showed that they had emergency surgery,” because there are lots of other reasons someone might leave a party. The statement only makes sense if there can be no reason for these men to leave except the cause given.
So by contrast, this makes perfect sense as a proof if there is a general rule: those part of the body do not go out from the body. I think Calvinists read that as the implicit rule to which John appeals; while you’re correct that it is not explicitly declared here, I don’t think it’s a fallacy to read it as implicit in his arguments. (An error, perhaps, but not the particular error for which you’re arguing.)
2) I agree, lots of Reformed people cite it in defense; I would, too. That’s a much weaker claim than saying their belief is grounded on this verse. (I suspect a lot of Reformed people appeal to it specifically because it’s sometimes used as an argument against perseverance: “Look, people going out from the church!”)
Here’s John Piper on the subject: [link removed]. He appeals to Romans 8, John 10, 1 Peter 1 and 5, Jude 1, 1 Thessalonians 5, 1 Corinthians 1, Ephesians 1… He doesn’t even come to 1 John 2 under the heading of “Those Whom God Has Justified Will Be Kept by God for Final Salvation.” Here’s James White on the same topic: [link removed]. Again, he goes to John 6, to Ephesians 1 – but not to 1 John 2 at all. The Canons of Dort ([link removed]) appeal to Romans 8 (again), and 1 Corinthians 1, and John 10, and even 1 John 3, but not 1 John 2. The 1689 Baptist Confession ([link removed]) references Romans 8 and John 10 and many others – and, yes, 1 John 2, but as one verse among dozens.
I’m not denying by any means that Reformed Christians appeal to this verse, but I think you’re attributing to it a centrality that’s not the way we think about it, and I think that’s a lot broader than just me saying, “Well, that’s not how I would do it.”
Hi Irked! It’s been a while.
Additionally to what Joe writes, I would also point out that 1 John 2:19 doesn’t say that the apostates were NEVER of us, only that they were not of us. And when you think about it, most people who abandon Christianity abandoned it in their heart before they abandoned it with their body. You also don’t substantively refute Joe’s point. It simply doesn’t follow that because a group of apostates were fake Christians, that therefore all apostates were fake Christians (to use our President’s lingo lol).
Also, as for John 6, we discussed this a while ago and you’ve made the same mistake. Read John 6:44 again. You will not see “if a man is drawn by the Father, he will be raised on the last day.” Two things are affirmed in John 6:44. First, that no one can come to Jesus unless that person is drawn by the Father and two, that that same person will be raised on the last day. A careful reading shows that the verse doesn’t actually say that this man is being drawn so there is no conditional with “being drawn” in the antecedent. However, we can infer that this man was drawn to Jesus from one fact: he will be raised on the last day. So the conditional is thus:
“If someone is raised on the last day, then he was drawn to Jesus by the Father.”
This is absolutely true, but you can’t go backwards. It doesn’t follow that being drawn to Jesus automatically means being raised on the last day. That commits another logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.
As for Romans 8, you make the mistake of reading in denials from affirmations. Even if you’re right that Romans 8:28-30 is a necessary sequence of events pertaining to the elect, it doesn’t follow that none of those events occur to the non-elect. That’s another logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent. Or to use Calvinist lingo, the existence of the “Golden Chain of redemption” does not rule out other possible chains. For example, it could be an absolutely necessary conditional that if one is predestined, then they will be called, justified, and glorified. However, you cannot infer from that if someone is not predestined, that they will not be called, justified, or even glorified.
It’s worth mentioning that none of these logical errors prove Calvinist doctrines false, but it does mean that the Scriptures offered in support of them will not do as proof texts. We could also discuss the Scriptures that contradict the doctrine which WOULD prove it false.
May God be with you!
Matthew
Hi Matthewp! That it has – hope you’re doing well.
Additionally to what Joe writes, I would also point out that 1 John 2:19 doesn’t say that the apostates were NEVER of us, only that they were not of us. And when you think about it, most people who abandon Christianity abandoned it in their heart before they abandoned it with their body.
I don’t understand what John would be saying, in this case. His words are, “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”
It seems like your reading would have him saying, “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. Maybe they used to belong from us, but then they went out from us in their hearts, and their bodies followed.” But to read John in that way contradicts his claim in the following sentence: that if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. After all, in this reading, they did belong to us, and yet they did not remain – right?
How do you interpret both sentences here, under that interpretation? What’s the logical thread of John’s argument?
You also don’t substantively refute Joe’s point. It simply doesn’t follow that because a group of apostates were fake Christians, that therefore all apostates were fake Christians (to use our President’s lingo lol).
As I said, I agree that this is not perfectly entailed by John’s sentence. But I don’t understand on what other ground John is supposed to make this claim. What sense does it make for John to say, “These particular men – who were not of us, as proved by their leaving – these men, if they had been of us, would never have gone out from us, which is why their leaving proves they were not of us. I’m not saying that as a general rule; I’m just saying it would have been a rule for these men, if they had been something other than they were, which is how we know they weren’t something other than what they were”? What kind of proof is that?
So you’re right – I’m not refuting Joe, inasmuch as he is factually correct that John does not explicitly say that this is a rule for all men. I think the Protestant read here is just that the argument doesn’t make any sense unless we read it as John implicitly presenting a specific case of a general rule. We may be mistaken in that reading, but it’s not a fallacy at that point.
Also, as for John 6, we discussed this a while ago and you’ve made the same mistake.
So the sentence is, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” As I said to you last time we talked about this, I don’t understand what more plausible reading there is than the one I present: no one can come unless the Father draws, and if the Father draws, Christ will raise them up. In particular…
“If someone is raised on the last day, then he was drawn to Jesus by the Father.”
… I don’t think there’s any way to read that as the point of the sentence. Like, the component words are there, but what in the thought produces that as a reading? If you don’t agree that the “him” of whom Christ says “I will raise him up” is the same as the “him” that was drawn, what reason do you have to connect the thoughts at all? It seems like the natural reading at that point is universalist: “No person can come, and I will still raise that no person up.”
I’ve offered this before, but suppose I said to you, “No one can come to my party unless he is invited, and I will give him presents.” I don’t think we’d have any confusion as to what I meant by that: you can’t come to my party unless I invite you. If I invite you, I’ll give you presents. I can’t really believe anyone would hear that and reply, “He isn’t saying that he’ll give you presents just because you were invited” – but that’s exactly what your reading produces.
As for Romans 8, you make the mistake of reading in denials from affirmations. Even if you’re right that Romans 8:28-30 is a necessary sequence of events pertaining to the elect, it doesn’t follow that none of those events occur to the non-elect.
I don’t know what else Paul could be saying but that there’s a necessary sequence of events here. But I actually thought of you specifically while writing that post, and I think if you’ll review it you’ll see I don’t invert the antecedents. My argument is that all Christians are justified at conversion, and that statements are made concerning all those justified: that they will be glorified. I do not argue that the glorified must be called, for instance.
So when you say…
For example, it could be an absolutely necessary conditional that if one is predestined, then they will be called, justified, and glorified. However, you cannot infer from that if someone is not predestined, that they will not be called, justified, or even glorified.
… well, purely in terms of the logic, that’s true. I think it shreds the sense of Paul’s argument: both verses 26-27 and 31 are words of comfort “for us,” and verse 28 treats the categories “those who love [God]” and “those who are called” as interchangeable, still evidently speaking of “us” (if the passage is meant to be any comfort). If 29-30 is not an identity, then Paul shifts from offering comforting words for all of “us,” to talking about some undefined group that isn’t all of us, to talking again about us. I don’t think that makes any sense as an interpretation, regardless of whether it translates into predicate calculus.
(I think it also ignores Paul’s consistent reference to Christians as “those God has called” in 1:6. And 1:7. And 9:24. And 1 Corinthians 1:2. And 1:9. And 1:24. And 1:26. And 7:18. And Galatians 1:6. And 5:8. And 5:13. And Ephesians 1:18. And 4:1. And 4:4. And… well, I’ll stop there; would anyone argue against that identification?)
But set all that aside; on the sheer, no-context logical transmutation of the passage, you’re right. That’s why I didn’t argue that there’s no one justified who was not predestined; I just argued that Christians are justified, and that anyone who has ever been justified will be glorified. That follows the implications in the entirely correct direction.
Hi Irked.
Concerning 1 John, if we’re talking prooftexts, we better make sure our logic is sound instead of vague “sense of the argument” stuff lol. The fact is the Calvinist doctrine “perseverance of the saints” does not follow from 1 John 2:19 and so it cannot be said that this verse teaches that doctrine. Furthermore, I don’t know how you can say it it even seems like John was intending to make a generalization. He wrote his Gospel and his letters against those specific folks he called “anti-Christs” (the gnostic docetics). He definitely had that group very much in mind. Anything beyond that is reading into the text.
For John 6, I’m glad you brought up your analogy again. To use the same analogy:
“No one can come to my party unless he is invited, and I will give him presents.”
That’s perfectly fair as an analogy but you’re missing something key. This isn’t saying that everyone at the party gets presents. It’s saying that if someone gets presents, then they must have been at the party. See the difference? It’s entirely possible that not everyone at the party necessarily gets presents. Therefore, it’s entirely possible that not everyone who is drawn to Jesus will be raised up at the last day.
Finally with Romans, Paul doesn’t say that ALL people who are ever justified will be glorified. He says THOSE whom He justified, He glorified. Who are those? The predestined to Heaven. Everyone predestined to Heaven will be in Heaven. That’s good Catholic dogma. However, God is perfectly capable of justifying someone whom He did not predestine. Paul in no way precludes this in Romans 8. So yes, all Christians may be justified upon conversion (baptism lol), but you cannot infer predestination from justification without affirming the consequent. And you cannot deny justification to someone who isn’t predestined without denying the antecedent. z
You said: “I just argued that Christians are justified, and that anyone who has ever been justified will be glorified. That follows the implications in the entirely correct direction.”
It doesn’t follow for the reasons I just gave. You could claim that it is consistent with those passages (Romans 8, John 6, 1 John 2), but that is a far cry from saying that it follows logically. But the fact remains, perseverance of the saints is INconsistent with other biblical verses such as Galatians 5:4 and 2 Peter.
And yes, Christians are most definitely called. But remember, “Many are called, few are chosen.”
May God be with you.
Matthew
Hi Matthewp,
Concerning 1 John, if we’re talking prooftexts, we better make sure our logic is sound instead of vague “sense of the argument” stuff lol.
So, I mean, this is why I opened by saying (a) that’s not the first passage I would go to, if I wanted to establish the doctrine, and (b) in the follow-up, here’s a bunch of other Calvinists demonstrating that this is not the first passage they go to, either.
But I also don’t think we can just disregard the question, “What’s necessary for John’s argument to make sense here?” You may disagree with the Calvinist answer – but so far, it’s the only explanation on the table.
Furthermore, I don’t know how you can say it it even seems like John was intending to make a generalization.
I feel like I laid that out already. The question is, why would he say that leaving proved that these guys were never part of the church? Why would their remaining otherwise have been so certain that he considers this a proof? “Because these guys were Gnostic” doesn’t really make sense as an answer; what does?
That’s perfectly fair as an analogy but you’re missing something key. This isn’t saying that everyone at the party gets presents. It’s saying that if someone gets presents, then they must have been at the party.
I don’t think that’s at all the natural read of the sentence. I think that, if you invited a bunch of people with that sentence, and some of them weren’t given presents, they’d be pretty rightly ticked off at you.
And, frankly, I do not see at all how you extract that meaning from the sentence. Like, sincerely, help me here; if you’re not willing to read the last clause as logically following from the middle one, what suggests a connection between them at all?
Finally with Romans, Paul doesn’t say that ALL people who are ever justified will be glorified. He says THOSE whom He justified, He glorified.
That does not make a darned lick of sense, which makes me wonder if I’m misunderstanding you. It sounds like you’re making a distinction between “those God justified” and “all those God justified,” and in particular claiming that the first group is a subset of the second. Is that actually what you’re doing?
Because that would require that there’s a person whom God has justified, about whom Paul would say, “He’s not one of those God justified.” And that’s… nonsense?
Who are those [the justified]? The predestined to Heaven.
You’ve been a stickler here for exact logical forms, so let me return that. What I hear you saying is that Paul is only saying the following:
“Those whom God predestined, he also called, justified, and glorified.”
Is that your reading? Because if so, I’m going to throw your own argument back at you: that’s a clear error, because application of the hypothetical syllogism neither destroys nor encompasses the component implications. Your conclusion is true, but it is strictly less than the claim Paul actually makes.
Like, this isn’t even “He might be a little logically imprecise, and so we have to figure out what exactly he means.” There is no ambiguity that, among the things Paul means, he means that for all x, J(x) -> G(x), and the reason there’s no ambiguity is that that’s exactly the thing that he says. You are adding clauses to the antecedent.
And yes, Christians are most definitely called. But remember, “Many are called, few are chosen.”
Whoa, that’s not what I said. Paul uses “those called” as a synonym for “Christians”: he uses the phrase interchangeably with the body of believers in every reference I gave you and then some.
When we want to understand how Paul uses variations on the phrase “those whom He called,” which is our primary guide: how Paul consistently uses them in the same book; how Paul consistently uses them in every other book; or how a different author uses it, once, in an entirely different book? Which is the normal hermeneutical principle?
And, like, set that aside entirely. If you’re arguing that Paul, in contravention of basically every other time he uses the word, is using “called” or “elect” of a broader group here – in the way Christ does in Matthew 22 – then that requires that this broader group are all justified, and glorified: “those whom he called, he justified.” Right?
Irked,
You said: “But I also don’t think we can just disregard the question, “What’s necessary for John’s argument to make sense here?” You may disagree with the Calvinist answer – but so far, it’s the only explanation on the table.”
Joe already gave an explanation. If I said something like “people who leave the Catholic Church aren’t really Catholic, if they were, they wouldn’t leave,” that doesn’t mean that they were never Catholic at all or that I’m denying the validity of their sacramental baptism. All it means is that at some point, they left their religion and no longer subscribe to it. If they did subscribe to it, they would know that leaving the Catholic Church is a sin worse than murder. That’s not Calvinist.
You also said: “The question is, why would he say that leaving proved that these guys were never part of the church?”
John doesn’t use the word “never.” That’s being read in.
Concerning John 6, you said: “I don’t think that’s at all the natural read of the sentence. I think that, if you invited a bunch of people with that sentence, and some of them weren’t given presents, they’d be pretty rightly ticked off at you.”
That’s such a subjective statement lol. As to if someone was invited into the Church but wasn’t given perseverance to the end, so what if they’re ticked off? God doesn’t owe anyone Grace. No one has any right to complain to God about how He chooses to give Grace (see Romans 9:20). As for your interpretation being “natural,” I wonder why everyone somehow missed it until John Calvin came along. It’s no where in the Tradition of the Church. You will not find it in any of the Fathers.
Concerning Romans 8, I’m trying to be as clear as possible but maybe not succeeding. I’ll simply echo everything Aquinas says in his commentary on the passage which is here:
https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/romans/st-thomas-aquinas-on-romans/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6/chapter-7/chapter-8
May God be with you!
Matthew
Hi Matthewp,
Joe already gave an explanation. If I said something like “people who leave the Catholic Church aren’t really Catholic, if they were, they wouldn’t leave,” that doesn’t mean that they were never Catholic at all or that I’m denying the validity of their sacramental baptism. All it means is that at some point, they left their religion and no longer subscribe to it.
On the contrary, I would say it means exactly that. If real Catholics don’t leave, then you cannot end with a sentence that says, “At some point, they left their religion.” Those are exactly contradictory sentiments.
The reading here would make John say, in effect, “Their leaving proves they were not of us. Well, they might have been, but then they left.” That doesn’t seem to me to be a meaningful statement. (I’m also pretty sure this is not Joe’s position? As he says in his reply to me, his reading is that these are men who were never all the way on board.)
If they did subscribe to it, they would know that leaving the Catholic Church is a sin worse than murder. That’s not Calvinist.
You lost me here, I’m afraid. Can you try me again?
John doesn’t use the word “never.” That’s being read in.
It’s logically necessary. Per John, if these men were of us, they would have remained in that state; if they do not so remain, inductive reasoning requires that they were never in the state. It seems like your reading would divide their “leaving” into two categories (leaving in spirit, leaving in body) in an attempt to avoid this problem – but that (a) doesn’t appear anywhere in the text, and (b) renders his argument void. (Clearly anyone who decides to leave must leave in spirit before they do in body; is John’s point nothing more than, “They left, which proves they decided to leave?”)
Again, I think you’re on your own here. Look at Joe’s original post: he agrees that these men “were never really Christians.”
That’s such a subjective statement lol.
Well, yeah. We’re talking about the natural reading of a natural language sentence, given by a man having a conversation. I don’t think, “What would people naturally understand this to mean, even if it’s not the formal logical rendering?” is an invalid question – and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most people would interpret the meaning I provide.
As to if someone was invited into the Church but wasn’t given perseverance to the end, so what if they’re ticked off?
My point is that they’d point to your sentence and say, “Look, you can talk about logical constructions all you want, but when you say, ‘No one can come to my party unless I invite him, and I will give him presents,’ it’s pretty clear that the guy invited is the guy getting presents. Who else is ‘him’ supposed to be?” And the same question applies here.
As for your interpretation being “natural,” I wonder why everyone somehow missed it until John Calvin came along. It’s no where in the Tradition of the Church. You will not find it in any of the Fathers.
In fact, I find it well before Calvin, including among the fathers. Here’s two, though I think the Chrysostom one is cleaner (or at least less wordy):
John Chrysostom, Homily 46, on this verse: “Not slight here is the authority of the Son, if so be that the Father leads, He raises up. He distinguishes not His working from that of the Father, (how could that be?) but shows equality of power.” The two works – the drawing and the raising – are not distinguished; how could that be?
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, book 4: “The Father then bringeth to the Son by knowledge and God-befitting Contemplation, those to whom He decreed the Divine grace. The Son receiveth and quickeneth them, and engrafting His Own Good into them who are of their own nature apt to decay, and shedding upon them as a spark of fire the life-giving Power of the Spirit, re-formeth them whole wholly unto immortality. But when thou hearest, that the Father brings them, and that the Son gives the power of living anew to them that run to Him, do not go off into absurd fancies, as though Each were supposed to do Individually and severally what belongs by fitness of Nature unto Each, but rather understand that the Father is Co-worker with the Son, and likewise the Son with the Father, and that our salvation and recovery from death to life is the Work (so to say) of the Whole Holy Trinity.” (So those the Father brings, the Son reforms wholly unto immortality. The subsequent salvation is the work of the Trinity, and not dependent on the “fitness” of the individual; that would be an “absurd fanc[y].”
Let me return the challenge: who among the fathers divided 6:44 as you do?
Irked,
You said: “On the contrary, I would say it means exactly that. If real Catholics don’t leave, then you cannot end with a sentence that says, “At some point, they left their religion.” Those are exactly contradictory sentiments.”
Only if it’s impossible to cease being Catholic. In one sense, I could say that it is impossible. Baptism does give an indelible mark on the soul, no matter what that person does. But there are plenty of people who have left our respective communities. When they leave, I feel confident saying that they no longer considered themselves as belonging to that community before the left. That’s almost a tautology. It makes no sense to knowingly abandon a community and still consider oneself a member. And even if one tries to maintain that cognitive dissonance, it’s just that, cognitive dissonance.
You said: “The reading here would make John say, in effect, “Their leaving proves they were not of us. Well, they might have been, but then they left.” That doesn’t seem to me to be a meaningful statement. (I’m also pretty sure this is not Joe’s position? As he says in his reply to me, his reading is that these are men who were never all the way on board.)”
Joe’s reading is possible too. But it’s also possible that the group John refers to were Christians at one point and then stopped. John is telling his readers that there are these heretical/schismatic gnostics that are trying to trick people and to not give them the time of day. They may claim to be from the Apostles but they’re not. And even if these gnostics were never Christian, it still wouldn’t follow that all apostates were never Christian, a point you seem to stipulate. Furthermore, I’m not saying which interpretation is required, only that the Calvinist one isn’t logically warranted from the text. Don’t confuse something being consistent with a passage and being logically required by the passage.
You said: ” I don’t think, “What would people naturally understand this to mean, even if it’s not the formal logical rendering?” is an invalid question – and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most people would interpret the meaning I provide.”
Reading the bible like this can get you into trouble. Some passages are clearer than others. Some might consider Arianism to be the “natural” reading of John 14:28. Whether or not it is a “natural” reading, it is an incorrect reading and not logically necessary from the text. It is a stretch because as it so happens, the vast majority of Christians are not Calvinists and do not interpret the passage that way, in keeping with the much older Tradition.
You said: “My point is that they’d point to your sentence and say, “Look, you can talk about logical constructions all you want, but when you say, ‘No one can come to my party unless I invite him, and I will give him presents,’ it’s pretty clear that the guy invited is the guy getting presents. Who else is ‘him’ supposed to be?” And the same question applies here.”
Yes the man did come to the party and get presents. But the only way we know he went to the party is BECAUSE he has presents. No matter how you slice it, you can’t logically get there. And table pounding about a “natural reading” won’t get you there either.
As for your Church Father quotes, John Chrysostom does not say that being drawn and being raised are not distinct, but that both the Father and the Son together do both. Think about it, is conversion the same thing as being raised on the last day? Of course not. Chrysostom’s point is that the Father and the Son are equal in power and authority.
All the Cyril quote does is affirm that those predestined to Heaven will be in Heaven. That’s good Catholic dogma that is. In the meantime, I leave you with the champion and doctor of Grace, St. Augustine who in his treatise on predestination said the following:
“But of two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. Yet to believers it ought to be a most certain fact that the former is of the predestinated, the latter is not. For if they had been of us, says one of the predestinated, who had drunk this secret from the breast of the Lord, certainly they would have continued with us. 1 John 2:19 What, I ask, is the meaning of, They were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us? Were not both created by God— both born of Adam — both made from the earth, and given from Him who said, I have created all breath, souls of one and the same nature? Lastly, had not both been called, and followed Him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men, and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration? But if he were to hear this who beyond all doubt knew what he was saying, he might answer and say: These things are true. In respect of all these things, they were of us. Nevertheless, in respect of a certain other distinction, they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they certainly would have continued with us. What then is this distinction? God’s books lie open, let us not turn away our view; the divine Scripture cries aloud, let us give it a hearing. They were not of them, because they had not been called according to the purpose; they had not been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; they had not gained a lot in Him; they had not been predestinated according to His purpose who works all things. For if they had been this, they would have been of them, and without doubt they would have continued with them.”
-On the Gift of Perseverance, Chapter 21
Matthewp,
Only if it’s impossible to cease being Catholic.
Right. And John says that for these men, that is impossible: that if they had been of us, they would have remained.
But there are plenty of people who have left our respective communities. When they leave, I feel confident saying that they no longer considered themselves as belonging to that community before the left.That’s almost a tautology. It makes no sense to knowingly abandon a community and still consider oneself a member.
Yes, again, that’s precisely my point. Your statement would reduce John’s “proof” to a tautology: it would mean he’s saying nothing but, “That they went out from us proves that they had decided to leave; because if they hadn’t decided to leave, they would have stayed.” That’s functionally meaningless; it strips him of any point beyond “People do things they’re gonna do.” Why would he think that’s a thing that needs to be proved?
The only way this passage makes any non-trivial statement is if “leaving” incorporates both the physical act of leaving and the determinative decision to leave.
And even if these gnostics were never Christian, it still wouldn’t follow that all apostates were never Christian, a point you seem to stipulate.
Sure, and I’ve addressed that position already upthread.
Furthermore, I’m not saying which interpretation is required, only that the Calvinist one isn’t logically warranted from the text.
And, again, I agree that it is not strictly logically required by this verse. I just do not see that the other interpretations make good sense of John’s argument; as I initially said, I don’t think this is the best case for limited atonement, and this is not the first verse I (or many other Calvinists) would go to in order to make that case.
Don’t confuse something being consistent with a passage and being logically required by the passage.
Heh. Can I get you to go argue with LLC in the Purgatory thread? Because I’ve been trying to make exactly that case over there.
Reading the bible like this can get you into trouble. Some passages are clearer than others.
I agree. I think John 6 is pretty darn clear, as Christ says the same thing half a dozen times over: those given/drawn/given to believe will believe/come/eat/drink, and those who believe/come/eat/drink will be raised up.
I agree, as well, that there’s reason for caution in interpretation by the mode of natural reading. But a need for caution does make, “What is the natural sense of this sentence?” an irrelevant question, nor does it mean that the only legitimate mode of hermeneutic is literal translation to predicate calculus.
And that’s particularly true when a sentence doesn’t actually translate to a single unambiguous predicate calculus statement, as this one does not. We can’t simply ignore what Christ says here on those grounds – and so what is the natural sense of it? I think I’ve made that case: the “him” that is raised up is the same “him” that is drawn; the two are an identity. I do not see that you’ve made a case for your reading, beyond the note that neither of ours is a literal logical translation.
And table pounding about a “natural reading” won’t get you there either.
I don’t think either of us has done anything to merit the descriptor “table pounding” in this conversation.
As for your Church Father quotes, John Chrysostom does not say that being drawn and being raised are not distinct, but that both the Father and the Son together do both.
That’s unsustainable. Chrysostom says the workings of Father and Son (to lead and to raise, respectively, as he says) are not distinguished – that it is foolish to even suggest that they be distinguished. He makes an exact identity between the two: “if so be that the Father leads, [the Son] raises up.” That’s been precisely my argument regarding this verse.
He does not say, nor does he say merely, that both Father and son raise; indeed, he’s consistent in describing raising as the Son’s work, and calling as the Father’s. The connection he presents is unambiguously between the work of giving and that of raising.
Chrysostom’s point is that the Father and the Son are equal in power and authority.
That may well be his point, but it is not all that he says. (Father and Son are not, in any event, equal in authority; the Father has authority over the Son. I assume we’d agree on that?)
Irked,
Here’s an article with a multitude of Early Church Father quotes on this subject. I’d also like to see you address verses like Galatians 5:4 or 2 Peter 2:20-22 or 1 Corinthians 10:12.
https://pintpipeandcross.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/the-early-church-believed-in-once-saved-always-oh-wait-no-they-didnt/
Matthewp,
I’d also like to see you address verses like Galatians 5:4 or 2 Peter 2:20-22 or 1 Corinthians 10:12.
I feel a bit the proverbial one-legged man in the kicking contest, but sure. Pick one.
Irked,
How about Galatians 5:4?
“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the Law. You have fallen from Grace.”
That verse just doesn’t make any sense if it is impossible to be severed from Christ and fall from Grace.
Matthew
Hi Matthewp,
Cool, let’s do this thing.
So, Galatians.
So Galatians is written by Paul to the church in Galatia, which has been (like so many early churches) tempted by the heresy of the Judaizers; in particular, the Judaizers are teaching that, to be saved, one requires both the blood of Christ and the ritual of circumcision, as befits Jewish tradition. Paul berates them for this, noting that this church had already been given the gospel once for all. Look, he tells them, it doesn’t matter who comes to you – angel, apostle, whoever – if someone teaches you some new doctrine, you test it against the gospel you were given; if the two don’t match, let that person be accursed.
He goes on to argue that this gospel came directly from God, and not from any human authority (1:1, 2:6, etc.). He specifically gives Peter as an example of the way even apostles can err in this matter – and how he, Paul, has consistently rebuked the false doctrine even then (ch. 2). Chapter 2 ends with Paul’s clear statement that salvation is by faith, and not by works of the law, by which no one can gain righteousness.
In chapter 3, he continues this theme, noting that they did not merely begin by faith, but that their salvation continues to be by faith alone: “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?” Here, as in Romans, he gives the example of Abraham: it was not Abraham’s works that saved him, but his faith that was credited as righteousness. As Abraham’s seed, we are no longer governed by the law; we are “children of the free woman.”
And that brings us to chapter 5. Let’s just quote those first few verses in total:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
So let’s note a couple of things here. First, Paul does not teach that the act of circumcision is sinful; how could he, when Paul himself will circumcise Timothy in order to reach the Jews? Second, Paul in any event teaches here that sin does not prevent the Christian’s salvation – for Christians are no longer under the law, and their righteousness is not judged according to their works. There’s no notion, in other words, of any kind of mortal/venial categories of sin – that would be entirely alien to Paul’s discussion here, and firmly excluded by his appeals to faith as the grounds of salvation.
And that gives the answer to the third point: so what is the problem?
The problem, says Paul, is that these Galatians are “now trying to finish by means of the flesh.” Their gospel is founded on the idea that our righteousness comes from Christ alone, independent of anything we do or don’t do; to add to it any action of ours – even this one thing – is to abrogate that total dependence on Christ’s righteousness. The resulting theology, he says, is “no gospel at all” (1:7).
In other words, faith – saving faith – must depend on Christ exclusively… or it isn’t really saving faith at all. A person who says, “Oh, but I guess I also need to…” will find that Christ is of no value to them, because he’s reintroduced obedience to the law (even in a single way!) as a condition of his salvation. Such a one does not have – cannot have – saving faith; he is separated (or, literally, “severed”) from Christ by the attempt to include his own accomplishments in the effort. In other words, the sense in context is that such a person is “fallen from grace” because they were never truly connected to it in the first place; anyone who truly believed that Christ covered all their sin would not see any place for the Judaizer’s claim.
I agree that’s a somewhat awkward reading – that in isolation, Paul’s words suggest a loss of salvation. But I also note that Paul goes on to say that he is “confident in the Lord” that this will not happen to the Galatian Christians: that the true Christians will not admit an admixture of their faith. And the teaching here is, in any event, inconsistent with (what I understand to be) the Catholic views of persistence.
Does that make sense as an answer?
Irked: In other words, the sense in context is that such a person is “fallen from grace” because they were never truly connected to it in the first place…
Me: You lost me at this part. How can “fallen from grace” = “you never had grace in the first place”? You can’t fall from what you didn’t posses. You can’t be made “void of Christ” unless you possessed Christ for a time. You argument up to this point leaned more towards Lutheranism, and you probably could have made a compelling argument for it.
I’m also pretty critical of the Theology you’ve set up for yourself here in denying a mortal/venial sin distinction, while at the same time admitting that you cannot know the identity of the elect. The Scriptures single out some sins as being incompatible with a heavenly destiny (I’m thinking particularly the hatred/murder example in 1 John). If you don’t make a distinction between mortal/venial sins, you’re left with a dilemma: 1. All sins prove you were never saved 2. No sins prove you were never saved. 1. is absurd because all men sin at least in small matters. 2. is absurd because it plainly contradicts where the Scriptures say “we know no murderer has eternal life within him”. Limiting the area of application to faith doesn’t help either, since murder isn’t the same thing as unbelief, and even if we didn’t have the problem of biblical evidence, we still have the problem that any doubt, no matter how minuscule or minute would be warrant to doubt the validity of one’s initial salvation. Everyone, without exception, has these doubts from time to time. I’m also not keen on the “trusting in anything other than the finished work of Christ absolutely and monergistically alone” salvation theology, even from a disinterested standpoint. In truth, no matter what, everyone to some degree or another trusts in something they did, otherwise there’s no warrant whatsoever that one is saved, even if it’s just in terms of evidence of salvation. Everyone to some degree or another trusts some experience/conversion/enlightenment/encounter/prayer/etc that they did sometime in the past or present, and if you (again) don’t make any distinction between mortal and venial, without exception, no one is saved, since they, in one degree or another, trust in themselves cooperating with God or God working in them.
I really do think the Catholic interpretation of this as “if you get circumcised intending to practice the Jewish rite and further your salvation by it, it’s a mortal sin, since you’re mixing the old and new covenant” works a lot better, and lends to a more natural and simple theology, based on Charity of the will, the Love of God, being led by the Spirit of God.
Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity.
Galatians 5:13-14 For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. [emph. mine]
Galatians 6:8 For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting.
Irked,
Your comment is LOADED with reformed presuppositions which would require several other threads to discuss thoroughly lol. I’ll try to restrict my comments to the most relevant data points. You said:
You said: “Paul in any event teaches here that sin does not prevent the Christian’s salvation – for Christians are no longer under the law, and their righteousness is not judged according to their works.”
This is difficult to understand as anything other than rank anti-nomianism. A “Christian” can sin as much as they like and it doesn’t affect their salvation at all. Of course, that is the primary danger of this error (“perseverance of the saints”). Furthermore, Paul himself teaches against this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and even in Galatians 5:20-21 even saying:
“I WARN you as I WARNED you before, those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
There’s no point in warning anyone of anything if their salvation is guaranteed and nothing they ever do could lose it. And as to being judged by works, there are almost too many verses to mention. Here’s a few in no particular order: Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 20:12, Matthew 12:36-37.
Galatians 5:1-6 NEVER says that sin has no effect against one’s salvation. It’s being presupposed by other reformed positions. When Paul says “we are not under the law, but under grace,” he is NOT saying that we can sin without consequences or that we no longer need to keep the commandments (see 1 Corinthians 7:19). Rather, the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and there is no need to join it.
You said: “There’s no notion, in other words, of any kind of mortal/venial categories of sin – that would be entirely alien to Paul’s discussion here, and firmly excluded by his appeals to faith as the grounds of salvation.”
Actually, he gives a list of mortal sins a few sentences later. And even what you said would imply that a loss of salvation follows a loss of faith. Furthermore, in Galatians 6:1, Paul writes:
“Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.”
Why? If he’s been imputed with the un-revocable righteousness of Christ, no trespass could ever damage that and there would be no need of restoration. If said man was never saved to begin with then there is nothing to restore him to. There are also more explicit examples of the mortal/venial sin distinction affirmed elsewhere but that’s for another thread.
You said: “Their gospel is founded on the idea that our righteousness comes from Christ alone, independent of anything we do or don’t do; to add to it any action of ours – even this one thing – is to abrogate that total dependence on Christ’s righteousness.”
The big problem with this statement is that it excludes us from even having faith. Faith is something we do.
You go on to say: “He is separated (or, literally, “severed”) from Christ by the attempt to include his own accomplishments in the effort. In other words, the sense in context is that such a person is “fallen from grace” because they were never truly connected to it in the first place; anyone who truly believed that Christ covered all their sin would not see any place for the Judaizer’s claim.”
You cannot be “severed” from what you were never a part of. You can’t be “cut off” from Christ unless you were connected to Christ. Your statement makes the words Paul used have no meaning. What did this person lose by his fall? Nothing? Then the person didn’t fall! What was he severed from? Nothing? Then he wasn’t severed!
Furthermore, the Judaizer’s main claim was not that you have to do a whole bunch of good works to be saved. Their idea was that someone had to join the old covenant before they could join the new covenant. A Christian who attempts to do that FALLS from grace and is SEVERED from Christ because the Old Covenant has been completely fulfilled. It served it’s purpose and is now an empty well.
Finally you say: “I agree that’s a somewhat awkward reading – that in isolation, Paul’s words suggest a loss of salvation. But I also note that Paul goes on to say that he is “confident in the Lord” that this will not happen to the Galatian Christians.”
Actually Paul acknowledges that this DID happen to the Galatian Christians in Galatians 5:7. Paul is confident that they will change their mind, especially after the lashing he gives them. But that reinforces the point that they done screwed up big time and need this correction. If no one lost their salvation, Paul was wasting his time.
I’m glad you admit your reading of this verse is “awkward” as you put it. It’s definitely not the “natural reading” ;). Your telling me that that when Paul says that they are “severed from Christ”, they weren’t SEVERED from Christ because they never had Him. And when Paul says that they have “fallen away from grace,” they didn’t really FALL from grace because they were never in it. Reformed presuppositions elsewhere force you to do this, which should cause you to question them.
May God be with you.
Matthew
Irked: I can’t really believe anyone would hear that and reply, “He isn’t saying that he’ll give you presents just because you were invited” – but that’s exactly what your reading produces.
Me: Actually, I would say just that. You also have to go to the party to get presents. Just because you’re invited doesn’t mean you go to the party. And that I think is the issue with your reading of this passage in John 6. The conditional is linked to coming to Christ (which involves free will) rather than the Father drawing. There’s an implied necessity of responding to Christ’s grace by coming to him for salvation. Or to quote our Lord: “…For many are called, but few are chosen.” This verse should be a sufficient key that the “golden chain” reading of Romans 8 is incorrect, since not everyone who is called is glorified, but there are some called who are not glorified.
When I say “conditional is linked to coming to Christ rather than the Father drawing”, I mean that the conditional promise of Christ raising the man in the last day is conditionally linked to that man coming to Christ which is conditionally linked to the Father drawing the man. The man coming to Christ is dependent on the work of God drawing him in his soul, and also the man’s free response.
And since we are talking about Grace and Free will, I cannot help but recommend one of my favorite Church Fathers, St. Augustine on the matter.
St. Augstine — On Grace and Free Will:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm
Furthermore, it’s a little ridiculous to suggest that St. John Chrysostom had Calvinism on his mind in his homilies on the Gospel of John because a few paragraphs earlier (also commenting on John 6:44) he had this to say:
“No man can come unto Me, except the Father which has sent Me draw Him.
The Manichæans spring upon these words, saying, that nothing lies in our own power; yet the expression shows that we are masters of our will. For if a man comes to Him, says some one, what need is there of drawing? But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implies not an unwilling comer, but one enjoying much succor.”
The whole commentary can be found here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240146.htm
I challenge anyone to seriously make the case that St. John Chrysostom was a secret Calvinist. If anything, he was a tad semi-pelagian.
Hi Alexander,
Actually, I would say just that. You also have to go to the party to get presents.
From my past arguments with Matthewp, though, we agree that those invited go the party; that’s established elsewhere in John 6. I skipped over that bit because we’ve hashed it out before. (Or, Matthewp, I believe we have; forgive me if I’m mistaken.)
That shows up in, for instance, 6:37: “All those the Father gives to me will come to me.” Those given, come; per 44, those not drawn/given do not come. The only remaining debate is over whether all those who come are raised.
That’s obviously not clear in just our argument today; my apologies. And again, Matthewp, if I’m misrepresenting your understanding of the chapter, please attribute the mistake to stupidity and not malice.
This verse should be a sufficient key that the “golden chain” reading of Romans 8 is incorrect
So the question here is whether Christ and Paul are using the word “called” in the same way. I think standard hermeneutics would say that, to understand how Paul uses a word in a given verse, we look first at how he uses it in the immediate context; then in the rest of the book; then in his other writings; and only then at other authors in other books.
In 8:28, only two verses before, “those who are called” are the same as those who love God – the “us,” 8:27 and 8:31. There’s the immediate context. As I argued upthread, I think both the rest of Romans and the rest of Paul’s letters agree on that usage.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of the other portion of John 6 though. “Given” and “drawn” are separate actions of the Father, corresponding to Election and Prevenient Grace respectively. Not everyone who is given Prevenient Grace was previously Elected. It shouldn’t be suprising that I make my contention here, since your take on John 6 here essentially rests upon the doctrine of Irresistible Grace, which I emphatically reject and deny. I don’t think we can move on past this particular point without discussing this immensely substantial doctrinal difference.
My reading of our Lord’s language “many are called, but few are chosen” is called = recipient of Prevenient Grace, chosen = recipient of Final Salvation/Election.
Hi Alexander,
I don’t agree with your interpretation of the other portion of John 6 though.
That’s fine! I meant that more as a clarifying note: in the context of things Matthewp and I already agree that Christ says in John 6, the distinction between “those coming” and “those drawn” disappears.
If I may be forgiven a gripe: what makes these conversations difficult is that, for all the much-ballyhooed Catholic unity, you guys don’t have anything like a common understanding of these passages. Joe thinks the guys in 1 John were never Christians; Matthewp thinks they were. Matthewp thinks (as I recall) those drawn, come (but may not remain); you think not all those drawn will come. It’s a bit like trying to argue simultaneously in two or three different directions.
To your point, though:
“Given” and “drawn” are separate actions of the Father, corresponding to Election and Prevenient Grace respectively.
I’d ask the same question I asked Matthew: who in the last clause of verse 44 is “him,” if it’s not the same guy as the middle of the verse? Because the only thing we’re told about that guy – if we believe “drawn” is an action distinct from everything else Christ says – is that he was drawn. On what grounds do we read him to be anyone else?
My reading of our Lord’s language “many are called, but few are chosen” is called = recipient of Prevenient Grace, chosen = recipient of Final Salvation/Election.
Would you then say that, as per Romans 8, all recipients of prevenient grace are justified and glorified? If not, I don’t understand the relevance of Matthew to Paul’s words in that passage – and in any event, I think I’ve made the case that Paul’s use of “those He called” is not ambiguous in the immediate context, the whole book of Romans, or in his writings as a whole.
Hi Irked,
I do agree with Alexander that in John 6:37-44 that those “give to Jesus” by the Father and those “drawn” to Jesus by the Father are not co-extensive. God the Father draws people to Jesus whom He has not “given” in eternal predestination to Heaven. The only question left to ask is, why would God do that? Why would He give someone grace and then allow them to fall away and be lost forever? The best answer to that question is the one St. Paul gave in Romans 9:20 (which is essentially “don’t ask” lol). If God wants to give the non-predestined to Heaven some amount of Grace and a temporary relationship with Jesus (perhaps to influence someone else He DOES intend to bring to final salvation), that’s His prerogative. He is the Potter and we are the clay.
I’m still not sure you understand my logical point about John 6:44. I completely acknowledge that the man is the same in both clauses. I acknowledge that this man is both drawn to Jesus and raised on the last day. What I do not acknowledge is that one’s election can be known from being drawn to Jesus. If that were true, then we’d know exactly who the elect are. As it is, God has kept that out of public revelation. What we CAN say is that if someone is given in eternal predestination, then they will definitely be drawn to Jesus.
Hope this helps. May God be with you.
Matthew
Hi Matthewp,
I do agree with Alexander that in John 6:37-44 that those “give to Jesus” by the Father and those “drawn” to Jesus by the Father are not co-extensive.
Ah, my apologies, then.
The only question left to ask is, why would God do that? Why would He give someone grace and then allow them to fall away and be lost forever? The best answer to that question is the one St. Paul gave in Romans 9:20 (which is essentially “don’t ask” lol).
Paul gives that answer to an entirely different question, though: why would God mercy some to salvation, and harden others against it – and how can he still fairly blame those He hardens?
If God wants to give the non-predestined to Heaven some amount of Grace and a temporary relationship with Jesus (perhaps to influence someone else He DOES intend to bring to final salvation), that’s His prerogative. He is the Potter and we are the clay.
I concur. The question is not, “Would God be so justified in doing?” The question is, “Is it His self-revelation that he does so?” I don’t think it is.
I’m still not sure you understand my logical point about John 6:44. I completely acknowledge that the man is the same in both clauses. I acknowledge that this man is both drawn to Jesus and raised on the last day.
I’ll frankly say I don’t understand your argument, then, because if this is true, then the one drawn is raised up. Christ has already said that this one – the one drawn, and subsequently raised up – is the only one who can come to him. Who else is there?
If that were true, then we’d know exactly who the elect are.
How so? We don’t have Drawn-o-Vision.
Once upon a distant past, Irked, I and others reviewed these same passages. We all could admit they offer a conundrum unless one is open to truth and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Here is Thomas Aquinas quoting Chrysostom on John 6. The verses deal with the drawing, election, raising, given, losing, etc.
I reiterate Chrysostom: All who have died will be raised from their graves on the last day. Then all the living and those raised from their graves will be judged. Some of those just raised will be judged unworthy of heaven and will be cast out (down); they are lost. Yet at least some of those same ones judged unworthy may at some point have been drawn and called. Certainly all who have died will be raised from their graves. But not all those so raised will be raised again to heaven.
Ps 1:7). Chrysostom explains the passage this way. The reason I do not cast out one who comes to me is because I have come to accomplish the will of the Father concerning the salvation of men. So, if I have become incarnate for the salvation of men, how can I cast them out? And this is what he says: I will not cast out one who comes, because I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, my human will, so as to obtain my own benefit, but the will of him who sent me, that is, the Father, “He desires the salvation of all men” (1 Tim 2:4). And therefore, so far as I am concerned, I do not cast out any person: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, now much more, having been reconciled, we will be saved by his life” (Rom 5:10).
924 Then (v 39), he shows what the Father wills; and next, why he wills it (v 40).
925 He says: I will not cast out those who come to me, because I have taken flesh in order to do the will of the Father: Now it is the will of him who sent me, the Father, that those who come to me I will not cast out; and so I will not cast them out. “This is the will of God, your sanctification” (1 Thes 4:3). Therefore he says that it is the will of the Father that of all that he, the Father, has given me I should lose nothing, i.e., that I should lose nothing until the time of the resurrection. At this time some will be lost, the wicked; but none of those given to Christ through eternal predestination will be among them: “The way of the wicked. Those, on the other hand, who are preserved until then, will not be lost.
Irked,
There is no conditional statement in the text of John 6:44. The verse actually is not positively affirming that this man is being drawn to Jesus by the Father. This is the third time I’ve pointed this out. It affirms two things about this man.
1. He cannot come to Jesus UNLESS he is drawn to Him by the Father.
2. He will be raised on the last day.
Neither of those two statements specifically tell us that the man is being drawn to Jesus. We can assume that he was drawn to Jesus, but only because we know he will be raised on the last day. Given that, we know that being drawn to Jesus is a NECESSARY condition for being raised on the last day be the verse does NOT tell us if it is a sufficient condition. You cannot logically read that from the text of John 6.
As far as the positive revelation that God does show us that it is possible to be severed from Christ and fall away from Grace, that would be Galatians 5:4.
Also, ponder this quote also from St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on the Gospel of John, this time commenting on John 15:6
“He is cast forth . . .
No longer enjoying the benefit of the husbandman’s hand. And is withered. That is, if he had anything of the root, he loses it; if any grace, he is stripped of this, and is bereft of the help and life which proceed from it. And what the end? He is cast into the fire.”
This shows most clearly that St. John Chrysostom thought that it was entirely possible to be stripped of grace.
May God be with you.
Matthew
Irked: I’ll frankly say I don’t understand your argument, then, because if this is true, then the one drawn is raised up.
Me: Our point (I think, I can’t read Matthewp’s mind, so I can’t be sure we are having the same thoughts, but it seems so) is that while the one who is elected and drawn is raised up, there are some who are not elected, but are drawn. These men who are drawn, but not previously elected are not raised up on the last day. I’d venture a guess that we both also agree that the Father draws 100% of all humanity, thus not making “drawn” a meaningful category in our scheme. Frankly, I’m pretty sure we both emphatically reject limited atonement, and I think that theological difference is playing out here too.
So in effect, our reading of the passage in John 6 ends up being thus:
No one (no one among humanity, without exception) can come to me (this coming to Christ is the continuous action of man’s free will in response to God’s Grace, of which this continual free will response within man is absolutely necessary for salvation) unless the Father who sent me draws them (this drawing, prevenient grace, is offered to all men universally, for God wills the salvation of all, cf. 2 Peter 3:9, but any man who comes to Christ has no occasion of boasting in himself, for there is nothing that we have that we have not received), and I will raise them up at the last day (them — those who came to Christ in response to the Father’s drawing, but not all who were drawn, as not all who were drawn responded, and not all who were drawn and responded, persevered in coming to Christ).
Irked: “Paul gives that answer to an entirely different question, though: why would God mercy some to salvation, and harden others against it – and how can he still fairly blame those He hardens?”
I think the question of hardening must be understood in the context of what sin does. Sin is damage…the consequence/punishment for sin is more sin. Hardening is sin’s damage. If God “hardens” someone’s heart, it’s because He allows them to continue in their sin as a result of their own refusal to accept/cooperate with His Mercy/grace. It’s a matter of respecting the free will God has given them.
I never could understand how distinguishing a ‘saving’ faith from a ‘not so saving’ faith is any reassurance at all since you could never know which kind you had until you’re dead and have found out where you’ve ended up. Only God knows that outcome and he’s not telling. Such a reassurance is just nicely packaged presumption. God desires that we all be saved and provides more than adequate graces and means to bring that about; but if we don’t avail ourselves of them, God’s not going to compel our salvation. As Paul recommends, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”
I think this quote of Paul’s that you provide must have been one of Martin Luther’s least favorite, as “working out” connotes something quite different than “faith alone”. Moreover, ‘fear and trembling’ was not something to be sought after, as St. Paul recommends, but rather was something that Luther was trying hard to purge from his life, as it caused him severe anxiety to the point of daily confessions, erratic behavior and mental exhaustion during his early monastic life. I think most psychologists today would diagnose Luther with some type of obsessive compulsive disorder triggered by an excessive fear of sin. So, I doubt that Luther would agree with this quote at all. It seems to be the antithesis of Paul’s ‘sola fide’ theology.
Moreover, trying to escape such obsessive compulsive fears and ‘scruples’ over sin, Luther probably inspired the ‘once saved always saved’ theology as a sort of off shoot of ‘sola fide’; because if you believe that you are irrevocably saved once you come to know Jesus, then this is one psychological aid to free ones self from any excessive fear of guilt and sin. So, the doctrine of OSAS works as a type of psychological tool against any scruples in the spiritual life, of which Luther was particularly tortured by. But, most other Christians lack this disorder (obsessive compulsive), and so “working out your salvation with fear and trembling” is actually seen by normal Christians in a positive light, even as St. Paul meant it to be understood. Paul certainly didn’t intend, in this teaching, for Christians to respond in the way that Luther did during his monastic life, having fits and convulsions due to his ‘fried’ nerves.
So, I think for an understanding some Protestant doctrines, such as OSAS, not only a theological analysis, but a psychological one as well, needs to be taken into consideration.
At the end of the first paragraph it should read …”Luther’s ‘sola fide’ theology”, not “Paul’s”.
In all of this, I also am trying to understand why so many Protestants insist on OSAS when throughout the 1500 years of Christianity before the birth of Protestantism via Martin Luther, Christians had never exhibited even a conception of such a doctrine. It seems it was spawned by Luther’s attempt to soothe his own tortured conscience in one way or another. And then others took the ‘ball and ran with it’, so to say…and added their own particular theories and details?
At least, that’s my best guess.
The only problem with that theory is that Luther didn’t hold to OSAS, but believed people could fall away from believing his gospel. OSAS finds its original expression in the theology of John Calvin.
When I wrote: “It seems it was spawned by Luther’s attempt to soothe his own tortured conscience in one way or another. And then others took the ‘ball and ran with it’”…I mean’t it to be an evolution from Luther’s doctrine of ‘sola fide’ to the “others”… such as John Calvin who ‘took the ball of sola fide’ and added to it, ultimately resulting in OSAS.
But in all honesty, I’m still trying to figure out how this all came about. And, it seems to me to be less about the intellectual theology of Luther, than his mental state wherein he needed an avenue to remedy his ‘scruples’, and attain ‘peace of heart’ as a young monk. That is, if he didn’t have excessive scruples, he probably wouldn’t have developed the doctrine of ‘sola fide’. It seems as if he thought that he could never supply sufficient ‘works’ to achieve such salvation, and so he needed to figure out a way to remedy this dilemma. This resulted in his ideas regarding ‘sola fide’; that is ‘no works are necessary, just faith’. This idea definitely gave him some peace of mind, as he expresses later on in life, stating “the heavens were opened” at this new idea.
OSAS seems to be just a further development of ‘sola fide’, made by Calvin and others.
Al: it seems to me to be less about the intellectual theology of Luther, than his mental state wherein he needed an avenue to remedy his ‘scruples’, and attain ‘peace of heart’ as a young monk.
Me: Completely agree. Luther couldn’t get over his scruples and fell into presumption througha mistaken reading of Romans. Having been a protestant myself, we even admitted this, but rather than understanding this as an unfortunate state Luther suffered, we thought it was inherent in Catholicism itself (as Luther himself thought).
I totally see your point that OSAS makes sense as a logical development off the same sentiment.
This is the only reason I bring up the psychological aspect of Luther, because so many Protestants are only interested in the sophisticated and intellectual side of Protestantism, without examining the origins of where those sophisticated doctrines actually derived from. It’s kind of like the origin of the Anglican Faith. No matter how sophisticated or supposedly logical their doctrines are, they still can’t escape the fact that the origins of those doctrines emanated from the murderous mind of King Henry the XIII. And it had nothing to do with religion or truth, but all to do with the Kings excessive and satanic lust for an heir to his royal throne. Yet, so many millions of Anglicans don’t seem to have a problem with this. They consider the murderous King to be right, regardless of his evil intensions and motives, and the Catholics wrong, even though it was the Catholic Church that was primarily responsible for the building up their English/British civilization for more than 1500 years before Henry was born. They don’t seem to understand that evil and sinful people, such as was Henry XIII, will most likely generate evil and sinful doctrines, institutions and societies as the ‘fruits’ of their labors.
Joseph Smith is the same. The Mormons will scrutinize the Book of Mormon and praise it’s sophisticated and miraculous history. Yet they will ignore the fact that their founder fraudulently translated authentic Egyptian hieroglyphs which they praise as “the Book of Abraham”. Why would anyone need to scrutinize the ‘Book of Mormon’ if is already proven that it’s author is a complete lier and fraud in one of his other books?? That is, no one needs to waste time arguing apologetically concerning the truths or errors in the Book of Mormon, when it is a fact that Smith was a mere con man from the beginning.
So, I lump Luther, Henry XIII and Joseph Smith together as Church founders who were sinfully deranged, and inspired only by their worldly lusts and wild imaginations. So, scrutinizing and analyzing the doctrines that emanated from them should be considered “for recreational purposes only”.
With regard to the credibility of self proclaimed prophets such as Joseph Smith or Mohamed, I found the test of true prophets given by Moses Maimonides in chapter XL of “The Guide to the Perplexed” illuminating: “The best test is the rejection, abstention, and contempt of bodily pleasures: for this is the first condition of men, and a fortiori of
prophets: they must especially disregard pleasures of the sense of
touch, which, according to Aristotle, is a disgrace to us: and, above all, restrain from the pollution of sensual intercourse. Thus God
exposes thereby false prophets to public shame, in order that those who really seek the truth may find it, and not err or go astray; e.g.,
Zedekiah, son of Maasiah, and Ahab, son of Kolaiah, boasted that they had received a prophecy. They persuaded the people to follow them, by proclaiming utterances of other prophets: but all the time they continued to seek the low pleasures of sensual intercourse, committing even adultery with the wives of their companions and followers. God exposed their falsehood as He has exposed that of other false prophets.”
In chapter XI of the Didache there are similar tests and proofs regarding false ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’. And it also says to ignore those who don’t teach about the Eucharist:
” 7. But suffer the prophets to hold Eucharist as they will.
XI
1. Whosoever then comes and teaches you all these things [Chap. X ‘on the Eucharist’] aforesaid, receive him.
2. But if the teacher himself be perverted and teach another doctrine to destroy these things, do not listen to him, but if his teaching be for the increase of righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.
3. And concerning the Apostles and Prophets, act thus according to the ordinance of the Gospel.
4. Let every Apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord,
5. But let him not stay more than one day, or if need be a second as well; but if he stay three days, he is a false prophet.
6. And when an Apostle goes forth let him accept nothing but bread till he reach his night’s lodging; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet. ”
Apparently there were plenty of Christian frauds even in the 1st. century.
citation: http://thedidache.com
Moses Maimonides test is from outside of Christianity, yet Christianity’s founder passes and it is in keeping with true Christian Tradition, particularly celibacy of the clergy. It also reflects a high regard for chastity in general. When one sees a so called prophet indulging his desires for sex or money or power or honor in the name of doing God’s work, you can be sure he isn’t a prophet or doing God’s work. Poverty, chastity and obedience are powerful indicators of who is.
Poverty, chastity and obedience = very noble, saintly and difficult vows/spiritual goals to keep. But it was the way of life of Jesus Christ our Lord who tells us to “Come, follow me”. It should be no surprise that most of the canonized saints, and other great hero’s of the Church, actually took such vows… or at least lived by the holy principles.
My point exactly. Jesus was the exemplar of the holy virtues. I’d seriously question the credibility of anyone selling worldly values. Mohamed offered his followers multiple wives in this life and virgins in the next. Joseph Smith’s whole theology revolves around sex. The ‘prosperity’ gospel speaks for itself.
Plucking out Protestant splinters a full time job is it? You must have enough for an auto da fe by now.
Fortunate is the man who has no beams to attend to, though I fear none such are to be found among us.
As for for Henry VIII he was a man who was grievously injured in the head while jousting and from the point of view of modern analysis was likely to have suffered injuries that are known to cause what are called “personality changes”. God knows the extent to which he must be held to account; I fear not even pope knows better than He.
Though it suited your Borgia popes and their ilk to pretend that the English Reformation was the work of an evil king, the reality is that a vile, worldly, hypocritical, arrogant, pretentious assembly of mortal men caused the Reformation and through their vain doctrines drove a wedge between God and man which their father the devil delights in.
And still they will not repent, no, while the Inquisition burned believers, your popes and cardinals built pleasure gardens and collected art, and no doubt mistresses and worse some of them. Were they such little fools that they thought they might wave a magic wand of absolution over each other and escape the judgment of God? They were that or they were something much, much worse.
No wonder they tried to prevent the faithful from reading Scripture: they knew they would be convicted by it.
Which is more foolish? The doctrine of “confession and absolution” by every Tom, Dick or Harry in a clerical collar, or the doctrine that “once saved, always saved”?
Proving once again that humans are vain fools who had best content themselves with what Christ taught rather than their foolish, Pharisaical abstractions intended to bolster their egos or their institutional aggrandizements.