Eternal Security Debate - Vocab's 5 Questions for Nick

Eternal Security Debate

Vocab's 5 Questions for Nick

by Vocab (Link)

 

1. Is it possible to lose and regain your salvation thousands of times within one life? Or is there a limit to how many times one can be saved? How does one re-gain their salvation after they have lost it?

2. Please explain the (apparent?) inconsistency in your view that the Roman Catholic Church could never become apostate and yet every single one its members and leaders could lose their salvation at any given time (similarly, do you believe the Pope himself could permanently lose his salvation?).

3. I assume you hold that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, infinite power, and a purpose for all that He does. On your view, God knows all those whom He will truly save only to have them lose their salvation later.

What then do you think is God’s purpose in giving someone a new heart, coming to dwell within them, and uniting them to Christ , only later to have them undo the whole process?

4. You’ve stated numerous times during this debate that Judas was truly saved and then lost his salvation. Please give us a few lines of biblical evidence where we can see any clear signs that Judas was ever regenerate.

5. In Matthew 7:22-23 Jesus said, “On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'” In my rebuttal essay I discussed the emphatic nature of the word ‘never’ and that Jesus could have said “I don’t know you now” or “I used to know you” – but he didn’t. 

We also see in John 10:14 Jesus said, “ I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me.” Here we have Jesus saying that he knows His own and yet he says to the many on that day "I never knew you;" how does Roman Catholic theology reconcile all these facts together?

 

Eternal Security Debate - Nick's 5 Questions for Vocab

Eternal Security Debate - Nick's 5 Questions for Vocab

1) To “persevere,” as I see it and based on how Scripture uses the term, means to endure various trials and sufferings without falling away (or get up when you fall) until you cross the "finish line." How can you believe in Perseverance when you believe the Christian is eternally Saved the moment they believe? In other words, if there is nothing that can harm the Christian in regards to the status of their salvation (the moment they first believe), how is the concept of Persevering logically valid?


2) In your Opening Essay, you said: “The Gospels attest to the preserving work of God in several places.” Since you didn’t really focus upon Matthew, Mark, or Luke, please list one passage from each of these Gospels that you believe most strongly teaches Eternal Security and explain why you believe those verses most strongly teach that.


3) In my Opening Essay I quoted Jesus saying: “If you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” in Matthew 6:12-15 along with its parallel in Mark 11:25. (Unfortunately, I misidentified the passage as Matthew 5 instead of Matthew 6, and Mark 10:25 instead of Mark 11:25, but you seem to have realized that given what I was speaking on.) The context of the passage I was speaking within was the Lord’s Prayer, especially the petition “forgive us our trespasses”.

The question is: do you believe the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer that is part of the (post-conversion) Christian’s regular prayer life and thought?
If No, then explain why the Lord’s Prayer (whether verbatim or simply it’s elements) has no place in Christian’s regular prayer life.
If Yes, then explain why the Christian must regularly ask for forgiveness from God when they engage in this or similar prayer.


4)  In commenting on my use of “If you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses,” you said in your Rebuttal:

Nick says that “if the believer won’t forgive others, God won’t forgive them.” The best way I have seen this summed up is like this: “Unforgiving means unforgiven.” This means that if a person is unforgiving then they themselves have not known forgiveness. I would also like Nick to tell us if he thinks he himself has perfectly forgiven all those in his life who have harmed him. Is it even possible for him to remember this accurately? Yes, we should be forgiving if we have been forgiven but we are kidding ourselves if we think we can forgive others in a way that meets God’s standard.

One of the most explicit passages that someone can be forgiven and yet turn to sin and be damned is Matthew 18:21-35. I mentioned Matthew 18:21-35 in my Opening Essay, but you didn’t comment upon it in your rebuttal. In light of your comment that a person who wont forgive means they were never originally forgiven: how do you explain the teaching of Matthew 18:23-35 (particularly verse 35) as well as your own admission Christians don’t always forgive?


5) Two important passages I quoted but didn’t see you comment upon were Luke 8:13 (“The ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.”) and Matthew 24:12-13 (“Because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”) I want you to exegete these two passages (since the passages are similar enough), making sure to touch upon “believe for a while,” falling away, love growing cold, and “will be saved.”

Eternal Security Debate - Negative Rebuttal Essay

Eternal Security Debate

Debate Resolution:

Do the Gospels Teach that Salvation Can Be Lost?

Negative Rebuttal Essay

by Vocab (Link)

In his opener, Nick lists a great number of proof texts (21!), gave his brief interpretation (often without an adequate justification), and then quickly moved on to his next proof text. It is difficult to properly exegete 21 different passages of Scripture in so short a space. It's unfortunate he took this sort of ‘shotgun approach’ because it often results in superficial readings and is not friendly towards in-depth exegesis. There are a couple general things to note about his list:

Many of them are parables or metaphors. Many are not dealing primarily with issues of salvation and yet Nick reads them that way. Many of the texts are dealing with other matters – they are not primarily 'salvation' texts in that their main subject is something different. Nick's misapplication of Matthew 5:13 is no exception to this flaw. The text is dealing with the collective mission of believers in the world - not with individual salvation. That question isn't even on the floor, so to speak. Just read through Matthew 5:10-14 and ask yourself, 'what is Jesus communicating here: the mission of his followers in a hateful world or some aspect about an individual's salvation?' The answer is without a doubt the former. Even if we were to read this in a way similar to Nick, I'm not sure it would work because the salt is still salt!

Many of his interpretations assume Roman Catholic dogma. Nick uses Matthew 26:33 and says that, “Denying Christ is a cardinal sin, and surely indicates loss of Peter’s salvation.” Note the assumptions: a ‘cardinal’ sin results in loss of salvation. We must ask: where did ‘cardinal sin’ come from in regards to this passage? Isn’t Nick supposed to be proving that salvation can be lost – not already assuming that certain sins result in losing salvation? Nick assumes what he is trying to prove in almost every one of the verses he listed as opposed to deriving his point from the text. Instead, he co-opts the text in an effort to ‘help’ the text help him prove his points. This is called eisegesis – reading in what is not there. 

The use of the present tense does not prove his case. If a person thinks that John using the present tense is proof that one can lose their salvation, then I would want to ask them was there any other way for John to describe an ongoing relationship with the God of Israel? Think about it: if one cannot completely lose the relationship with the Lord, then it is always present! Even more than that, as one reads John’s gospel, they will soon realize that whenever John speaks of the false faith of counterfeit believers, he employs the aorist tense. A few examples are John 2:23 and John 8:30. This is a subtle way John differentiates between ‘wheat’ and ‘tares’, a la Matthew 13:30.

While we’re in Matthew and before we look at a few of Nick’s points, I think it is wise to keep in mind Matthew 7:21–23: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ This will help us keep this debate in perspective; here we have folks who by every external measure look truly saved and yet they were false prophets, wolves in sheep’s clothing. This should humble us, both in our own complacency and our appearance-based judgments. Of course, the most profound statement comes at the end: “I never knew you.” The word here for never is oudepote and per Louw-Nida’s Lexicon (UBS, 1996) refers to “an indefinite negated point of time—‘never, not ever, at no time.’” The entry also points out its use in three other places in the NT (He 9:17; 2 Tm 3:7; Jn 7:46). If you peep out those other verses, you’ll quickly get an idea of the “never at any time” vibe of the word. 

When we compare this to Jesus statement in John 10:14 that "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me," we can see this means Jesus is saying he never knew these folks – they did not fall away, for he did not know them at one time and then their sin became so foul that he had to let them go. No, they never had a relationship with the Lord and instead were workers of iniquity. This truth must factor in all discussions of the eternal security question.

Nick employs yet another non-salvific text - Matthew 10:28 - in his presentation. Interestingly enough, right after this verse we have powerful affirmations of God’s providential control in regards to the smallest of events, as in the death of the sparrow (Mt 10:29); even the number of our hairs is under his governance (Mt 10:30). These verses also direct us towards the protecting love of God; sovereignty and God’s protecting love are the very foundation of the security of the believer! 

In regards to Matthew 5:12-15, Nick says that “if the believer won’t forgive others, God won’t forgive them.” The best way I have seen this summed up is like this: “Unforgiving means unforgiven.” This means that if a person is unforgiving then they themselves have not known forgiveness. I would also like Nick to tell us if he thinks he himself has perfectly forgiven all those in his life who have harmed him. Is it even possible for him to remember this accurately? Yes, we should be forgiving if we have been forgiven but we are kidding ourselves if we think we can forgive others in a way that meets God’s standard.

Out of all Nick’s comments, I found the one on John 13:8 to be the strangest: “Jesus put Peter's salvation on the line, indicating that salvation can be lost…”. Where does Jesus put Peter’s salvation on the line? According to Nick, when he tells Peter he must wash his feet! Unless I misunderstand, what Nick is saying is if Peter had not let Jesus wash his feet in the upper room, then Peter would have lost his salvation. Peter was objecting to his Master’s humble service because he failed to see the deeper meaning of Jesus’ actions but are we to think that this would have endangered his soul? Dr. Ed Blum has paraphrased the object lesson this way: “Unless I wash your sins away by My atoning death (Rev 1:5) you have no real relationship to Me” (1 Jn 1:7).” (Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983). Jesus isn’t “indicating that salvation can be lost” but rather what the nature of salvation looks like in the first place.

What of John 15:1-10? Is Jesus painting a picture of believers who have lost their salvation and are now to be cast into hell? It seems that the one who “does not abide in me” (Jn 15:6) is an unbeliever, equivalent to the one who “does not bear fruit” (Jn 15:2). 

In John 15:11, Jesus tells his disciples the point of this discourse: “These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.” Would it make sense for Jesus to say, “Listen up guys; I want you to know that if you don’t bear fruit you’re going to lose your salvation and go to hell – cheer up! Guess what else? I’m going to be betrayed and crucified – now I’m only telling you this so you’ll be happy!” No. 

I hesitate to quote James White because of Nick’s history =) with him but his comments are nonetheless helpful:

“The branches that are pruned by the Father are those that abide in Christ. Again, this is not an action that comes from the branch but from the vine. That is, those branches that have a vital union with the vine are the ones that bear fruit. The fruitfulness of the branch is a function of the vine, not of the branch itself!” (From “The Believer's Security”)

 In another article on this same passage, Dr. White wrote, 

“The branch’s ability to do what it is designed to do (bear fruit) is completely and totally contingent upon another, that being the vine. The life-giving sap flows from the vine to the branch, resulting in the creation of fruit.  In the same way, the believer who bears fruit never does so on “his own,” but only as grace flows from Christ into his or her life.” (From “John 15, the Vine and the Branches”)

Nick’s Opener and John’s Gospel

At the end of Nick’s opener, he claims that when Jesus says “no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (Jn 10:29) that this is “in the sense of external forces” such as Satan. However, the text does not single out Satan (or anyone else); no one is a universal negative - it negates every one. Why is Nick inserting the foreign idea of “external forces” into the text? When it says “no one is able;” this speaks of inability, meaning not even one single person has the ability to snatch them away. Nick really needs to deal with this instead of just telling us what he thinks it’s supposed to mean - especially when he gave us no solid basis for his explanation.

 Much to my chagrin, Nick *does* argue Judas was truly saved and then lost. Isn’t it obvious, though, that when Jesus says he chose Judas in John 6:70, he means “selected to be one of the Twelve”? We see this played out in John 13:18: “I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’” Here Jesus explicitly places Judas outside the number of the elect. As Calvin pointed out, “Should any one confound the term election in the two passages, he will miserably entangle himself; whereas if he distinguish between them, nothing can be plainer (Institutes III, xxiv, 9).”

Eternal Life: Now or Later?

Anticipating the use of John 6:40 and John 10:28, Nick said that ‘eternal life’ in John has to do with “being in a current relationship with the Trinity.” It is unclear to me why Nick thinks Protestants define ‘eternal life’ as “legally worthy of entering Heaven” but on the face of it, isn’t it clear that eternal life means at least “life everlasting” or “life that never ends”? It is true there is a qualitative element in the phrase and this does have to do with knowing the Triune God but there is also – almost obviously – a quantitative element as well (Jn 8:51, Jn 11:26). Moreover, in John 10:28 the present tense is used, indicating they have already entered into eternal life – it is a current possession.

As the late Donald Guthrie explained, in John 5:24 “Eternal life is here defined as a transfer from death to life” (The New Bible Commentary, 1994). Nick tells us that “John is never saying ‘believe and eternally saved’” but compare that to John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” Even more grand is the promise that the wrath of God no longer remains on those who believe in the Son! It seems Nick would have us believe differently - that it can indeed remain.

The interesting thing about Nick’s claim that eternal life in John merely means one is “in a current relationship with the Trinity” is directly contradicted by John 14:16: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever.” This verse is Triune through and through: the Son asks the Father who sends the Holy Spirit - who remains with the believer forever. Further evidence to the permanency of the relationship is that the same word (aiōn) often translated ‘eternal’ is translated ‘forever’ here. This is why it is wrong to believe in lifelong insecurity and right for Christians to speak of eternal security.

Andreas Kostenberger, in his wonderful Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel (Apollos, 2008) helps us see that “this is the great blessing that Jesus the anointed Son of God brings – a share in his filial relationship with the Father by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (p 146-7).” In essence, this means that just as the Father would never kick the Holy Spirit out of the Trinity (God forbid!), now the Father will not kick any true Christian out of the family! As foreign as that may sound to certain ears, think of it this way; “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (Jn 1:12). We have been made sons! We have been adopted by a Father who chose us and does not ‘un-adopt’ those whom he has made sons.

Eternal Security Debate - Affirmative Rebuttal Essay

Eternal Security Debate

Debate Resolution:

Do the Gospels Teach that Salvation Can Be Lost?

Affirmative Rebuttal Essay

by Nick

In this Rebuttal Essay I will address the three main sections which Vocab wrote upon.

The first section dealt with addressing important distinctions and approaches to our respective theologies. While I as a Catholic do not believe in Sola Scriptura, and thus would probably be considered by some as not accepting Scripture’s full authority, I don’t think that is as critical a factor as it could be. The reasons are as follows: (a) despite not accepting formal sufficiency, I accept material sufficiency and thus hold to a very high view of Scripture; (b) I don’t accept Sola Scriptura / Formal Sufficiency primarily because I don’t believe such is even taught in Scripture in the first place, meaning I simply refuse to accept an unbiblical doctrine(!); and (c) a large percentage of (conservative) Protestants, likely even the majority, do not believe Scripture teaches Eternal Security, and they base this conclusion on Scripture Alone, even using some of the very texts I’ve already appealed to. Thus, my rejection of Sola Scriptura has no direct impact on the debate thesis.

The next two points Vocab made in his first section are worth quoting in full: “The correct interpretation of any given scripture can not result in any real contradictions with the correct interpretation of another scripture” and “It is necessary to interpret less explicit passages in light of more explicit passages.” I wholeheartedly agree with this, and this is precisely the approach I took when examining this issue. In fact, I think I took these ideas more to heart than Vocab did, since I examined every chapter of all four of the Gospels when looking at and presenting the evidence. In my Opening Essay, I quoted from all four of the Gospels when coming to my conclusions, where as - as far as I can see - Vocab focused essentially on two passages in John, while virtually ignoring all of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This, to me, is an implicit concession that the doctrine has no reasonable testimony in the Synoptic Gospels, implicitly confirming my thesis.

The only inaccurate part of Vocab’s presentation of my position is when he said:

In short, it is not an option for Nick to believe the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, which places the emphasis on God’s doing, not on man’s merit.

I as a Catholic believe in perseverance of the saints, and this can be seen as easily as examining the same Catholic documents Vocab quoted from. I believe the Bible teaches this as well, especially in texts such as Matthew 24:12-13, which says the one who perseveres will be saved. In reality, it is Vocab who denies the concept of Perseverance, because in his view there is nothing for the Christian to persevere in in the first place since he is Secure from the moment he believes. To persevere means the danger of falling away always exists, and you (with God’s grace) must endure those trials to the very end. Just like in a race, you persevere when you complete the race, despite any trips and falls along the way, while the potential of failing to finish the race always exists. In Vocab’s theology, the runner is awarded the trophy at the very start, and doesn’t base it on his performance in the race. That might be Eternal Security, but it’s not perseverance. Note the Scripture I quoted above, it says only upon persevering is one (eternally) saved, not before. Thus, based on Scripture and logic, Vocab’s theology is incorrect on what it means to be saved and persevere.


The second section of Vocab’s Opening Essay addressed the evidence for eternal security as found in the Four Gospels. Unfortunately, his entire case virtually rested upon a particular reading of two passages in John (6:37:40 and 10:26-30). The rest of his texts he quoted were simply tangential to his reading of those two passages. He didn’t quote a single texts from Matthew or Mark, and only a single brief quote from Luke. For a doctrine so important, we would think Scripture strongly testified to it in all Four Gospels, and not just two passages in John.

In my Opening Essay, I anticipated these two passages would be appealed to, and briefly touched upon them, since in my experience they are virtually the only Gospel texts appealed to for Eternal Security. As I noted originally, those texts need to be examined on a few key fronts:

• Context: the context is that of heard-hearted Jews who dislike the notion of Jesus being the Messiah. Their nation has a long track record of disobeying God, and this rebellion culminates with their rejection of God’s Final and Ultimate appeal through the Incarnation. It is not speaking of sinners in general or unbelievers in general, which is why particularly harsh language is used at times. The protection Jesus is offering is not that of protection against personal sin, but rather against outside forces like Satan and persecuting Jews. Given that, we cannot jump to the conclusion this is protection from personal sin, which it is not, as other passages clearly indicate.

• Grammar: many of the important Greek terms used are in the present-tense, indicating the action must continue for the benefits to continue. Thus, it is not speaking of past-tense-already-completed events, such as believing at a single moment in the past and being fully awarded eternal life at that moment. Given just this, it’s clear the Protestant notion of Eternal Security is grammatically impossible. Instead, it’s teaching a notion of Perseverance, and thus one is only saved so long as they are persevering. Further, terminology such as “believe” and “eternal life” are also not used Scripturally the way Vocab is assuming.

• Consensus: the Gospels as a whole give strong consensus for personal sin leading to a loss of salvation, thus we would not expect two texts to over-turn this consensus. Ultimately, if Vocab is going to base his entire case on these two texts, he is engaging in the fallacy of special-pleading, in which one examines only part of the available evidence and ignores any contrary evidence.

With this firm-footing established, there can be no reasonable objection to the Catholic interpretation of these passages. The Catholic interpretation is essentially this: Jesus gives life to, protects, and preserves those believers who remain united to Him, while those believers who turn to sin lose these benefits to some real degree. This is why passages like John 15, when Jesus is speaking to his disciples, say to abide in Christ (and thus receiving the fullness of His blessings) believers must keep His Commandments and that those believers who turn to sin are like branches cut-off and withering.

Vocab then spends some time talking about the line “I will never cast out,” interpreting this to mean the believer wont be rejected by Christ for turning to sin. As noted earlier, I believe a key distinction is being overlooked: Jesus will never abandon the faithful Christian, giving comfort to them, telling them he wont abandon them when things get tough, but this is distinct from the believer turning to sin (e.g. as the Prodigal Son was not cast out, yet chose to leave).

In wrapping up his focus on John 6, Vocab says:

we see at least three distinct evidences of the Triune God preserving believers:

1. Jesus will never cast them out
2. Jesus will not lose any that the Father has given
3. Those who believe will be raised

Jesus summarizes it this way in 6:40, “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” We could even add one more evidence here if we simply realize that eternal life is just that: eternal. How can you be given something that lasts forever and then have it not last forever?

As I’ve stated throughout: the first two points above refer to Jesus not abandoning the believer nor letting Satan or persecutors over-power Him, but nothing at all about the one given to Him leaving and turning to sin (as Judas is explicitly said to have done); the third point, along with quoting 6:40, properly understood is speaking of persevering in believing, not that anything is secure, since the present tense verbs “looks,” “believes,” and “have,” indicate continuous actions and benefits, not completed ones.
The terminology “eternal life” - as John tends to use it - is often misunderstood, which is speaking of a present relationship with God, not legal entitlement to Heaven: as John 17:3 virtually defines the whole essence of it: “This is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” and 4:14, “The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” and lastly 14:23, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” Notice that “eternal life” is a transformation in the individual’s soul when united to the life of the Trinity. Think about it, John is saying the epitome of eternal life is Jesus dwelling in your heart hear and now as a believer! Thus, properly understanding the grammar of the text, John 6:40 beautifully becomes: this is the will of the Father, that whomever continues to look upon Jesus and continues to believe in Jesus, will continue having personal unity with the Trinity in their soul.

Another important point Vocab focuses upon is Jesus’ intercession for protection for his disciples, arguing this indicates eternal security. I think this is assuming too much. Jesus can and does intercede for disciples for various needs at various times, and His intercession is efficacious. That doesn’t necessitate Jesus always intercedes at all times for every protection (else you’d have to argue Jesus totally abandons believers when they are martyred or that when a believer turns to sin Jesus failed to stop them). A good example of this principle - that Jesus doesn’t interceded for every protection or blessing at every time - is the very passage Vocab cites, Luke 22:31-32, where Jesus prayed singularly for Peter (using the singular ‘you’) in the midst of all the Apostles abandoning Christ when the soldiers came to crucify Him. The Apostles truly turned away at that point, including the infamous account of Peter denying Jesus three times! Yet Christ’s intercession was so that Peter would be converted again and in turn bring back his brethren. Jesus did not protect Peter from gravely sinning and (temporary) apostasy, but He ensured Peter would repent and re-unite Himself to Christ and thus salvation. This getting back up when the believer falls is what Perseverance is all about!


In the third and final section of his Essay, Vocab focuses on the accounts mentioning Judas’ falling away. But note carefully the very first passage he quotes: In John 17:12 Jesus says, “While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” Here Jesus is speaking of all 12 Apostles, which he says He “kept” and which were “given” to Him, and that He protected and lost none - except one, Judas. This clearly confirms the Catholic interpretation: Jesus protected them under certain conditions, and this never included or guaranteed protection from personal sin, which is precisely how Judas was lost. The only way to harmonize the fact Jesus lost one of the 12 He was to protect is the Catholic interpretation. From the way the Gospels speak, Judas actually was a genuine believer up until he began to become disillusioned with how Jesus was fulfilling the Messianic role, hence the reason the Bible says Judas “betrayed” Jesus (you can’t betray someone you never were loyal to).

I firmly maintain the Catholic view is the only one that both takes all the Scriptural evidence into account as well as the only view that is able to harmonize all Scripture.

Eternal Security Debate - Negative Opening Essay

Eternal Security Debate

Debate Resolution:

Do the Gospels Teach that Salvation Can Be Lost?

Negavie Opening Essay

by Vocab (LINK)

Section 1: KEY DISTINCTIONS

My Key Assumptions

Before I begin discussing the question of do the gospels teach that salvation can be lost, it is important to make known some key issues which under gird the position that no truly justified person can be lost:

1. God-breathed Scripture is the Christian’s ultimate authority
2. The correct interpretation of any given scripture can not result in any real contradictions with the correct interpretation of another scripture 
3. It is necessary to interpret less explicit passages in light of more explicit passages
4. Scripture uniformly teachers us that Jesus alone is the Author and Finisher of our faith
5. Realizing that it is God whom preserves those whom he elects must result in an increase in the Christian’s hope, peace, and a never-ending desire to please our Savior

Eternal Security Debate - Affirmative Opening Essay

Eternal Security Debate

Debate Resolution:

Do the Gospels Teach that Salvation Can Be Lost?

Affirmative Opening Essay

by Nick

Among the various heresies that arose at the time of the Reformation, one of the most notable was the doctrine of “Eternal Security” - the teaching that the Christian cannot lose his salvation. Since this debate is focused only on whether the Four Gospels teach salvation can be lost, the historicity or other Scriptural testimony of the doctrine will not be considered.

Eternal Security Debate - Do the Gospels Teach Salvation can be Lost?

Eternal Security Debate:

Do the Gospels Teach Salvation can be Lost?

Affirming Resolution: Nick
Denying Resolution: Vocab (Blog link)

• Opening Essay - Due Monday Dec 27

• Rebuttal Essay - Due Monday Jan 3

• 5 CrossEx Questions - Due Thursday Jan 6 (3 days later)

• 5 CrossEx Answers - Due Monday Jan 10 (4 days later)

• Concluding Essays - Due Monday Jan 17

Essays are 2,000 words each. Only the Four Gospels will be examined. A one-week grace period is allowed, if needed. Essays will be posted publicly, comments closed until the last essay, and the opponent's essay will be linked to.

Did Christ Fulfill the Law in our Place?

A common but very serious theological error is the Protestant notion that Jesus fulfilled the Law in our place. This error is of a two fold nature: first, conflating and confusing the two notions of "fulfill" and "obey all the commandments perfectly" as if they were synonymous, and second, not recognizing Christians are called to fulfill the law and that the Bible never teaches Jesus "obeyed all the commandments" in our place.

Are Catholics Interpreting Scripture without Magisterial Authorization?

There is a frequent charge by Protestants that whenever a Catholic presents Scriptural evidence for any particular doctrine, rather than engage the passage in question and interpretation of it, the Protestant simply responds by saying something to the effect, "is that your private interpretation, or did the Magisterium infallibly interpret this verse for you?" The intent is to neutralize the Catholic argument by re-directing the issue onto that of infallibility.

This Protestant "response" is simply misguided. It fails to distinguish and understand the Catholic approach to Scripture and the Catholic objection to the Protestant error known commonly as "private interpretation." The truth is, both Catholics and Protestants are guided by a teaching traditionally called the Analogy of Faith (the classical meaning of the term 'analogy' is 'proportion' or 'rule'). The Analogy of Faith is the teaching that all theological interpretation must be done in harmony with the Church's defined doctrines. This means that the Church doesn't need to infallibly interpret every single passage of Scripture, but rather only needs to set up certain 'parameters' (i.e. dogmas) from which to read Scripture in light of. One of the preeminent examples - which both Catholics and Protestants would readily agree upon - of the Analogy being used is the quote from St John's Gospel where Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I." Knowing that the Church teaches Christ is a Divine Person with a Divine and human nature, the Analogy of Faith tells us that we cannot interpret Jesus' saying in such a way as to contradict that dogma.

The point of real divergence is that Protestants don't have a definite way of establishing dogma, where as the Catholics do (via the Magisterium). The result is that Protestants have less definite 'parameters' to operate within, leading to widely divergent interpretations of Scripture. That said, the Protestant Dogma of Sola Fide (Justification by Faith Alone) is the most important unique 'parameter' when it comes to Protestants interpreting Scripture. A good example of a Protestant using their own Analogy is when they approach James 2:24, in which the Protestant knows they must interpret this passage so as to not contradict Sola Fide.

Back to the original point: when a Catholic presents a text of Scripture to demonstrate or prove a given concept or teaching, they need not have a specific Magisterial interpretation of that verse, since the Church allows doctrines to be demonstrated or defended in any legitimate manner - particularly by applying the Analogy of Faith.

The issue of infallibility (i.e. authoritative interpretation) comes into play when defining the dogmas in the first place. A classic example of the need for authoritative interpretation (aka infallibility) is when examining the Biblical phrase "This is My Body." While the phrase is perfectly intelligible, what is not "clear" is whether this is to be taken literally, figuratively, or somewhere in-between. While many modern day Protestants would say the actual interpretation is ultimately "non-essential" to salvation and thus one is free to hold any view, historically Protestants have had bitter disputes over how to view this saying. Generally, the Anglicans and Lutherans hold to a mostly literal view, the Calvinists hold to a view between literal and figurative, and the Baptists hold to a mostly figurative view. Since none of these views directly contradict Sola Fide, the Analogy doesn't help one way or the other, and ultimately an authoritative interpretation (by a Magisterium) is necessary to settle the dispute.

At this point, only the Catholic position makes sense, since the Catholic position openly affirms the existence and necessity of a Magisterium. If Sola Scriptura were true, then Scripture alone would have been clear enough to settle the dispute. As it stands, Scripture is not formally sufficient, as the "This is My Body" example plainly demonstrates.

Council of Nicæa Proves Papacy

The Papacy is one of the most decisive (and divisive) issues in Christendom, particularly in determining whether or not the Catholic Church is the One True Church. While much can be said as far as the Scriptural support goes, the testimony of Tradition is just as powerful in this regard, most notably the testimony of the early Ecumenical Councils.

At this point many Eastern Orthodox and Protestants would object, saying that the Councils actually suggest the opposite, namely that the Bishop of Rome did not have the authority Catholics claim. One of the leading examples appealed to is the 6th Canon of the Council of Nicaea, which says (quoting only the most relevant portion):

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.

Now there is some slightly different translations of certain terms of this canon, but this rendering is generally accepted. Reading this canon for the first time, many get the impression the Bishop of Rome is simply one bishop among others with no unique authority, directly undermining the notion of Papal Supremacy. This is the common take on this passage by Eastern Orthodox and Protestants.

The problem the Protestant is in is that even if their rendering were correct, the fact remains that this canon clearly teaches the Bishop of Rome has some high ranking authority, with the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch on some sort of equal footing. In other words, the early Church (as testified by this most important Council) was clearly one of a hierarchy of bishops, including very high ranking bishops - something totally incompatible with Protestantism. The only thing the Protestant can do is to ignore this Council and embrace an inconsistency of accepting the Council as orthodox Christianity but ignoring all the history and details of the Council (including the canons). This is indeed why many Protestants have no problem brushing off Nicaea or any other Council in favor of "Scripture Alone" (i.e. as soon as a "difficulty" arises, any part of any Council can be dispensed with).

But there is yet another detail here that is plain upon even a surface reading, and that is that this is a custom/tradition. Now if Nicaea took place in 325AD, it is no leap of faith to suggest this custom/tradition extended back at least 2-3 generations of Christians (if not further, as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would suggest), meaning this custom goes back easily 75-100 years (again, if not further, which there's no reason to deny). This means there was an acknowledged bishop of Rome, with this authority, easily dating back to 225AD. Now if the last Apostle (St John) died around 90AD, and any given Protestant is going to suggest the Papacy is an apostate invention, then this means Christianity had to have gone apostate in under 150 years.

While the Eastern Orthodox would not deny the Bishop of Rome Traditionally had high authority (as many historical Christian testimonies prove), even being the "first among equals" (an uninspired and fictitious phrase invented by anti-Papal advocates) when it came to the (three) Patriarchs (i.e. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch), there still leaves the issue of whether this canon suggests Primacy or rather Roman subordination to this Council (and equal authority among Bishops). That the Bishop of Rome is looked to as a "standard" here in this canon is itself good evidence that the Bishop of Rome was not merely "first among equals" with no true superior authority. But that's only granting the anti-Papal interpretation of the canon!

What is the Catholic interpretation of this canon?

To answer that question, Catholics have made the following argument, masterfully stated in this article. Here is the essence of the argument:

• To render Canon 6 along the lines of: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch [with his own separate jurisdiction]" is nonsense; it's the non-sequitur fallacy: it doesn't follow nor fit with the (territorial) claims being made in regards to Alexandria.

• The only reading that makes sense is something along the lines of: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since it is the tradition of the Pope to grant Alexandria this jurisdiction." This directly connects to the first clause, and the reasoning and force of the argument is that the authority to which it is appealing to (i.e. Rome) is sufficient to settle the matter.

This obviously entails two things: the Council submitting to the traditions of the Pope (Bishop of Rome), and a clear primacy over the other two Patriarchs (and by extension all bishops of the Church). This refutes Eastern Orthodoxy.

*          *          *

Update: 5-12-12

I just found another great piece of evidence to supply to this argument. In the Second Ecumenical Council (i.e. Constantinople 1), about 50 years after Nicaea, here is what was said in Canon 2: 

Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers.

This Canon is most certainly calling to mind Canon 6 of Nicaea. Yet notice that there is no mention of Rome among the two giants of Alexandria and Antioch. This strongly supports the claim that Rome has no boundaries, and thus Canon 6 was indeed not putting Rome as on par with Alexandria and Antioch. 

And to drive this point even further home, notice what Canon 3 of Constantinople 1 says:

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

So here Rome is mentioned, and it clearly is shown to be the head, as even the man-made See of Constantinople (with no ancient customs and no apostolic roots) is said to be in second rank. 

In short, these two Councils did not dare to infringe upon the rights and prerogatives of Rome.