1 John 5:13 - Whats the Catholic Response?

[Liberian]

“I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.”

How is this verse in accordance with the very next lines where mortal sin is discussed? In what way does John mean we can **know **we have eternal life? Obviously this is against Catholic teaching, and it is in fact against his very next verses on mortal sins, so obviously the straight-forward interpretation is not what John intended here…what exactly does he mean by “know?”

Thanks in advance for the comments,
Michael

If I may suggest, to have something is not the same as to be unable to lose something. You may have eternal life in your present state, but in the future you may do something that will cause you to lose it; in effect, you may throw your eternal life away. (Another favorite proof text on the subject cites Jesus’ statement that none may seize these little ones out of his hand; hence I am careful to phrase it as the person himself throwing his eternal life away rather than someone else taking it from him.)

• Liberian

 

[awfulthings9]

Caldera:

Awfulthings9,

Are those verses not crystal clear enough to be taken for what they say? Do they need to be interpreted at all, or do they need to be interpreted in a way to make it fit what the Church teaches?

Could it be a contradiction? No, because the Church says Scripture is inerrant.

You give a fitting “interpretation” of those verses to make me believe what the Church says is true, but then when it comes to John chapter 6 for example, you might say “Why don’t you understand that the bread that Christ gives IS his flesh! It’s right there in Scripture plain as day!! Read it, pal!”
Protestants on the other hand will try to “interpret” John 6 while taking other verses literally.

Do you see what i’m trying to say? I’m not trying to create any problems, just looking for answers to the problems that Scripture poses at times.

As far as Mortal Sin = rejecting Christ in that verse, it must be darn near impossible to commit a mortal sin. I mean who in the world would flat out knowingly commit a mortal sin intentionally trying to go against Christ in a rejectful way? Nobody i know.
I’ve committed grave sins (technically as in what the church says is grave) at times out of weakness, but never any intent to reject Christ himself. Never!

Something doesn’t seem right somewhere. It’s either Scripture or the Church…

I’m trying to look for answers that will help me in my attempt at a “journey home”, but so far it’s not going well for me…

The deeper i look into what’s required to be believed, the harder it becomes. At one point i grew into a state of holiness after a major conversion experience. It happened in the Catholic Church, but at the time i didn’t even know my faith. It was so real that i was seriously thinking about dropping everything and becoming a priest!

But then things changed in my life and i ended up gradually falling away… Now i’m trying understand the faith that i never knew so i can get back to the Sacraments.

Because of what i’ve experienced in my life, i can’t help but wonder sometimes if the Church is too complex with the rules they’ve created for their own good. They have the power to bind and loose, which is scary for those who find it a little too hard to believe all the teachings and dogmas, etc that is required without any doubt!

Thanks for your response, Caldera. See, the problem is that when you ask “Aren’t those verses clear enough?” you set up the same problem that afflicts so many protestant churches, who try to go by the plain sense of Scripture. Yet, with so many different denominations, this isn’t a strategy that works. You presented a verse which, by itself, seems to contradict the idea that our actions can affect our salvation. Yet, in other places of the Bible, we see that our actions can affect salvation. Either the Bible contradicts itself, or we are taking verses out of context and must understand the whole. Yes, if I looked at your verse in a vacuum, I’d have to agree with you, but you think what I am trying to do is interpret the verse in a way that fits Catholic doctrine. Rather, I’m reading it in conjunction with verses, such as Matt 7:21, and the entire Scripture, which tell us that in some cases, such as in the verse you pointed out, our works affect our salvation, and in some cases they don’t. So, there must be something more to it, which brings us to venial and mortal sins again. I’ll continue in the next post.

 

[awfulthings9]

You ask if anyone would truly commit sin knowing they are offending God? The answer is Yes. The way you word it, it does seem absurd because, I agree, no real Christian really says to himself, “How can I offend God today?” Rather, we submit to our own lust, pride, greed, etc. and allow our own desires to take priority over our dedication to God. If I commit adultury, I am rejecting my wife, even though a man who commits adultury doesn’t get up thinking, “How can I reject my wife today?” You must agree that it is still a rejection, though. So you claim that it must be hard for any Christian to commit a mortal sin under these demands, but looking at the analogy, I’d say that the number of adulteries commited in our society shows that such a rejection is not hard. Adultery is to marriage what mortal sin is to our covenant with God. Forgeting to take out the trash is to marriage what venial sin is to God. No wife would divorse her husband over forgetting to take out the trash, but adultery would be a just cause. Hense the verse you submitted. God would not condemn us for our simple sins (ie. the analogy of forgetting to take out the trash), but when we actually reject him through a mortal sin, we are rejecting him, and condemning ourselves, as does a husband who ruins his marriage through infidelity. Finally, you paint it as a negative thing to read Scripture in light of Church teaching, comparing it to protestants who interpret to their own needs. Keep in mind, though, Catholics embrace oral teaching as equal to Scripture in God’s three part revelation. Protestants reject it. It isn’t hypocritical for us to read Scripture in light of oral tradition, so while you may not be ready to come home yet (though I’m excited at your efforts to discern), you can blaim us for reading passages in light of the oral teaching that Christ spoke about in 2 Thes. 2:15. It isn’t an attempt to read stuff into passages that wasn’t already there, but to read the words as God intended by the Holy Spirit guided teachigns of the Church. Sorry, that’s just how Catholics operate, Thank God. However, since most Protestants claim to reject it and demand the “plain sense of Scripture”, as did your last post, it would be hypocritical to read John 6 beyond the literal meaning. Anyway, I appreciate your respectful reply and hope mine reads the same way, even when we write with passion. Sometimes our tone and intent get muddled in the text and emoticons of these forums. God bless.

 

[awfulthings9]

You ask if anyone would truly commit sin knowing they are offending God? The answer is Yes. The way you word it, it does seem absurd because, I agree, no real Christian really says to himself, “How can I offend God today?” Rather, we submit to our own lust, pride, greed, etc. and allow our own desires to take priority over our dedication to God. If I commit adultury, I am rejecting my wife, even though a man who commits adultury doesn’t get up thinking, “How can I reject my wife today?” You must agree that it is still a rejection, though. So you claim that it must be hard for any Christian to commit a mortal sin under these demands, but looking at the analogy, I’d say that the number of adulteries commited in our society shows that such a rejection is not hard. Adultery is to marriage what mortal sin is to our covenant with God. Forgeting to take out the trash is to marriage what venial sin is to God. No wife would divorce her husband over forgetting to take out the trash, but adultery would be a just cause. Hense the verse you submitted. God would not condemn us for our simple sins (ie. the analogy of forgetting to take out the trash), but when we actually reject him through a mortal sin, we are rejecting him, and condemning ourselves, as does a husband who ruins his marriage through infidelity. Finally, you paint it as a negative thing to read Scripture in light of Church teaching, comparing it to protestants who interpret to their own needs. Keep in mind, though, Catholics embrace oral teaching as equal to Scripture in God’s three part revelation. Protestants reject it. It isn’t hypocritical for us to read Scripture in light of oral tradition, so while you may not be ready to come home yet (though I’m excited at your efforts to discern), you can’t blaim us for reading passages in light of the oral teaching that Christ spoke about in 2 Thes. 2:15. It isn’t an attempt to read stuff into passages that wasn’t already there, but to read the words as God intended by the Holy Spirit guided teachigns of the Church. Sorry, that’s just how Catholics operate, Thank God. However, since most Protestants claim to reject it and demand the “plain sense of Scripture”, as did your last post, it would be hypocritical for a “Bible-only” Christian to read John 6 beyond the literal meaning. Anyway, I appreciate your respectful reply and hope mine reads the same way, even when we write with passion. Sometimes our tone and intent get muddled in the text and emoticons of these forums. God bless.

 

[awfulthings9]

One last thing, Caldera, is that after my post, I reread yours, and your last paragraph bothers me. You believe that the church has come up with these rules for “its own God” and seem to imply that the power to bind and loose is invented. Just a note, that this is a powerful bias that will prevent you from ever impartially exploring your journey home. One of the things to do is to stop basing your thoughts on greenthumbs, like me, who sometimes post in these forums. There is some great advice here. A lot of great minds. But there are some who don’t have a firm grasp on the theology yet and present some dangerously incorrect answers. Do as I did when I underwent the same journey (though I have a hunch you are doing this already) - which is to go to the experts. Read approved books on the subjects. But mainly, if you aren’t going to drop the idea that the Church is pulling a big con job in this whole “binding and loosing” thing, your journey is at a stand-still, at best. God bless.

 

[reen12]

Dear awfulthings9,

The analogy with adultery doesn’t hold water, I think.
[your post, this date, 12:42 PM]

The individual in question could repent of this
behavior, turn back to God and seek his
wife’s forgiveness.

Such behavior does not necessarily involve
‘ruining’ a marriage.

Obstinant behavior of this sort, on the other hand, could.

Just a thought. reen12

PS: Come to think of it, in the Hebrew Scriptures,
through the Prophets, God often described the behavior of
those Israelites who fell away from the Covenant as “adultery”,
and calling them to come back to Him.

---

Lyrics to Blessed Assurance,

cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/l/e/blesseda.htm

 

[elizabeth4truth]

reen12:

This puts me in mind of the hymn Blessed Assurance…This is not flippant ‘presumption.’
It is lively faith and trust.

Dear Reen12,

Thank you for all you wrote, in this post. It was a little long to paste here but all you said touched my heart deeply. You seem a very gentle, sincere and blessed soul, to me.

I thank God, for your contributions made here, in this forum.

Peace,

Elizabeth

 

[reen12]

Dear elizabeth4truth,

Thank you for your gracious response.

I love God very much, in my own muddling way.
And He loves me back.
To know that I can turn, and turn again, back
to Him, in His loving forgiveness, when I sin,
fills me with loving gratitude.

God bless you, elizabeth4truth, and thank you.
Maureen

 

[awfulthings9]

No analogy is perfect. Thanks for the note, Reen. You’re right in that it doesn’t fit if I’m talking about forgiveness, but the subject of this discussion was more on distinguishing the gravity and intent of sins, mortal vs. venial, and it works there. However, let me qualify it by saying he has a forgiving wife, but she needs him to seek reconcilliation with her first, as God does with us. She will take him back if he truly intends to cheat no more, just as God will always accept us after mortal sin, as long as we are truly repentant and intend to commit this sin no more.

 

[reen12]

Hi, awfulthings,

awfulthings9:

but the subject of this discussion was more on distinguishing the gravity and intent of sins, mortal vs. venial, and it works there.  QUOTE]

I appreciate your point while disagreeing with it.

If a person makes a statement, within a thread,
that is on topic;
And if I find that I disagree with the statement
that is made,
I am allowed to reflect on same

The thread topic does not insulate a poster from
having another member challenge a statement.

“No analogy is perfect.” quote, awfulthings

True, but when an analogy seems to me to
neglect one of the cardinal principles of
faith, i.e., forgiveness and reconciliation, I
feel duty bound to challenge it…*as *an analogy,
thread topic or no.

Kindest regards,
reen12

 

[reen12]

Hi, awfulthings,

You’re right in that it doesn’t fit if I’m talking about forgiveness, but the subject of this discussion was more on distinguishing the gravity and intent of sins, mortal vs. venial, and it works there. QUOTE]

I appreciate your point while disagreeing with it.

“No analogy is perfect.” quote, awfulthings

True, but when an analogy seems to me to
be based on omitting one of the cardinal principles of
faith, i.e., forgiveness and reconciliation, I
feel duty bound to challenge it…*as *an analogy,
thread topic or no.

Kindest regards,
reen12

 

[Elzee]

I’ve heard Tim Staples comment on this a few times. The word ‘know’ , as it used in this verse in Greek, does not mean a full, absolute, complete knowledge. It means a ‘confidance’. He uses the example of ‘I know I’m going to get an ‘A’ on my test tomorrow’. Well, you don’t really KNOW for sure, but you are confidant. The way ‘know’ is used in 1 John 5:13 in Greek is similar to how ‘know’ is used in this English sentence example.

 

[reen12]

Dear awfulthings,

You wrote:

“However, let me qualify it by saying he has a forgiving wife, but she needs him to seek reconcilliation with her first, as God does with us. She will take him back if he truly intends to cheat no more, just as God will always accept us after mortal sin, as long as we are truly repentant and intend to commit this sin no more.”
quote, awfulthings

Thank you. This was what I wished to clarify:

The individual in question could repent of this
behavior, turn back to God and seek his
wife’s forgiveness.

“…but the subject of this discussion was more on distinguishing the gravity and intent of sins, mortal vs. venial” quote,
awful things

I dunno, awfulthings. It is not a topic that I am
at home with, without copious reference to the
mercy and forgiveness of God, through Jesus.

It’s not that these categories don’t exist.
But I thought that was the reason Jesus came.
“I have come, not for the healthy, but for those
in need of a Physician.”

I know what is troubling me, here. The emphasis,
not the topic itself.

Thanks for your kind response, awfulthings,
reen12

 

[reen12]

Dear Elzee,

Elzee:

I’ve heard Tim Staples comment on this a few times. The word ‘know’ , as it used in this verse in Greek, does not mean a full, absolute, complete knowledge. It means a ‘confidance’. He uses the example of ‘I know I’m going to get an ‘A’ on my test tomorrow’. Well, you don’t really KNOW for sure, but you are confidant. The way ‘know’ is used in 1 John 5:13 in Greek is similar to how ‘know’ is used in this English sentence example./

QUOTE]

Yes! That is what I meant by:

"Putting my faith in Jesus, following what He
taught in the gospels, and *trusting *Him to
keep His word in terms of my salvation.

This is not flippant ‘presumption.’
It is lively faith and trust."
quote, reen12

I believe “confidant”, in Latin, translates “with faith.”
For me, “with faith” is equivalent to “trust.”

Thanks for your post. I learned something.

reen12

 

[Caldera]

Awfulthings9,

Thanks for your replies…

I guess my biggest problem for me is that i knew the love of Christ in the church before i knew what was expected of me to be Catholic.

The requirements for being a “member” of the Catholic Church are not easy to swallow. Like i said, the more i look into what is required to be believed, the more difficult it gets.

There are quite a few things that bother me right now, but i’ll give you an example of one:

Dogma: The Assumption of Mary

This Dogma was declared 1,950 years after Christ died. That’s a long time…

Question: How is believing that Mary was assumed into heaven going to help my own salvation? This is what the church is telling you by declaring it a dogma. You must believe it without any doubt, or you risk losing your salvation.

Problem: The Church can offer no proof that this ever happened. There is nothing in scripture that says anything about it. You just have to believe it because they said it.

This has nothing to do with Christ dying on the cross for the sins of the world. It seems like an unnecessary rule/requirement for the member to have to believe without any doubt in order to have salvation. You risk eternal damnation if you disagree…

Why would they do this? Are they just trying to flex their authority muscle? Are they trying to set themselves up for persecution?

Christ is the one who reaches out to people and draws them with love, while the church seemingly makes difficult rules that make it hard to become a “member”.

Was protestantism a mistake?

I can easily argue from both sides of Christianity, but i have no answers for sure… just questions.

 

[Matt16_18]

“I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.”

How is this verse in accordance with the very next lines where mortal sin is discussed? In what way does John mean we can **know **we have eternal life? Obviously this is against Catholic teaching, and it is in fact against his very next verses on mortal sins, so obviously the straight-forward interpretation is not what John intended here…what exactly does he mean by “know?”

John explicitly writes in his first epistle that “eternal life” is Jesus Christ. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life – the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us – that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1John 1:1-3John is saying exactly the same thing in this epistle that he says in the first chapter of his Gospel. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus Christ is our eternal life, and if God does not abide within us, we have not eternal life.

Can we know that we have eternal abiding within us? Of course we can. One cannot be a Catholic and deny that the Sacrament of Baptism brings the indwelling of God into our souls.

Can we lose the eternal life abiding within our souls by sinning? That is the real question, and there can be no mistaking that John believes that the eternal life that abides within can be lost.
He who does not love abides in death. Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
1John 3:14-15

He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life. I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him. If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
1John 5:12-17

 

[Matt16_18]

michaelgazin:

Okay, by “against catholic teaching,” I am referring to the notion that this introduces eternal security which is *not *taught by the Catholic Church. I believe the straight-forward interpretation is probably that of eternal security, however that is not John’s intent, nor a belief of the Church, so my question is what does this mean since it does not refer to eternal security?

No, the straightforward interpretation is the one that affirms what John has actually written, i.e. eternal life is Jesus Christ, and a Christian can lose the eternal life abiding within by committing mortal sin.

The interpretation that “eternal life = eternal security blanket”, is an interoperation that can be held only by held by taking verses of scripture out of their context. There is absolutely nothing in John’s first epistle that supports the heresy of OSAS that is commonly preached by Baptists and other fundamentalists Protestants, i.e. the heresy that states that once you are “saved” that there is NO sin that you could commit that would make you lose your salvation. This pernicious heresy totally contradicts the whole of John’s first epistle; in fact, it contradicts the whole Bible.

 

[reen12]

Dear Caldera,

There are quite a few things that bother me right now, but i’ll give you an example of one:

Dogma: The Assumption of Mary

This Dogma was declared 1,950 years after Christ died. That’s a long time…

Question: How is believing that Mary was assumed into heaven going to help my own salvation? This is what the church is telling you by declaring it a dogma. You must believe it without any doubt, or you risk losing your salvation.

Problem: The Church can offer no proof that this ever happened. There is nothing in scripture that says anything about it. You just have to believe it because they said it.

This has nothing to do with Christ dying on the cross for the sins of the world. It seems like an unnecessary rule/requirement for the member to have to believe without any doubt in order to have salvation. You risk eternal damnation if you disagree…

Why would they do this? Are they just trying to flex their authority muscle? Are they trying to set themselves up for persecution?

Would you mind if I took a moment to address
your points above?
I, too, have major difficulties with the Assumption,
and have written on this topic, elsewhere on the
forums.
But let me reverse roles and present an equally
cogent view, I hope.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God spoke to His
people through the prophets. In their own human
voices, they told Israel what God wanted Israel
to know…to be aware of. The prophets were “commissioned”
by God, if you will, to communicate certain
“realities” to Israel.
The prophesies were fulfilled in the coming of
Jesus of Nazareth.

Now jump forward many centuries. Jesus founds
His Church on Peter. He promises the presence
and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Can we make an analogy here, with the prophets?
God “commissions” Peter and his successors to
announce “realities” to His people, the Mystical
Body of Christ, in His name, and the Holy Spirit
inspires the successors of Peter, in the same
manner that God inspired the prophets.

The astounding reality here, Caldera, is that this
claim by the Church is either true or no.

Since God “stayed with” His people, Israel,
through the proclamations of the prophets,
I think each individual, with the grace of the Holy
Spirit inspiring him/her, has to decide if the
claims of the Holy Roman Catholic Church
reflect reality - again, in an astouding way.
If those claims are true, then the dogma of the
Assumption may seem less of a hurdle.

But, then, God seems to do things in astounding
ways. The Eucharist, “This is My Body”, is the
Reality of realites here on earth and perfectly astounding
to me.
Hope this will be useful a little bit.
God bless you,
reen12

 

[awfulthings9]

reen12:

I dunno, awfulthings. It is not a topic that I am
at home with, without copious reference to the
mercy and forgiveness of God, through Jesus.

It’s not that these categories don’t exist.
But I thought that was the reason Jesus came.
“I have come, not for the healthy, but for those
in need of a Physician.”

I know what is troubling me, here. The emphasis,
not the topic itself.

Thanks for your kind response, awfulthings,
reen12

I agree, reen12. I’m not at home with categorically seperating them either, as far as my own theological ponderings go. However, the problem is that no Earthly analogy could possibly adequately capture the mystery and grandure of God’s salvation plan. I think, therefore, it is appropriate, then, that when the conversation is going in a certain direction, to be able to present the analogies that are effective for that train of thought, while they fall short of the big picture. The emphasis, which you say is troubling you, was appropriate because caldera had specifically questioned the idea of “rejecting” Christ, and I was using the analogy to show how rejection takes place in mortal sins, not to examine God’s response to it. So yes, if the conversation had been about salvation in general, my analogy was poorly chosen, but then a more true analogy would have had to have been broken into hundreds of posts because of its complex nature. So yes, you’re right that they these concepts can’t be fully appreciated in a vaccuum, but I think it’s fair to hold individual elements up to certain lights occasionally for clarification, as long as all participating understand that is all one is attempting to do (as I was in answering a very specific question). Long story short, I hope I clarified, but I want to say how much I appreciate your post. You help me to see where I need to be more specific in written communication. Caldera, I didn’t respond to yours, but I appreciate it, too, and wish you the best of luck as you work out your difficult questions. Best.

 

[hlgomez]

“I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.”

Believing results in action moved by the grace of God. It is not a matter of “believing” solely. For many will say to the Lord on the last day; “Lord, Lord we prophesied in your name…” But they will not enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Pio