Has Eternal Life?

[Socrates4Jesus]

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
​

(John 5:24)​

FP:

The belief actually appears to mitigate against the Catholic position that one can lose salvation (which is the belief that some Protestants also hold). If you are living the eternal life God gave you right now, and you by this time next year reject that free gift and return to a life of unforgiven sin terminated by physical death, then it is logical to say that the life you had was not eternal, because it ended the day you gave it up. That is, a person who loses his salvation never had eternal life in the first place.

No my friend…first of all, the quote you listed above by itself literally means just hear (listen) and believe. But the content of what Jesus says throughout the Gospels doesn’t instruct one to just listen, but to hear what he’s actually saying and follow his teachings, otherwise one is facing rejection of God and will be eternally separated from Him.

If you reject the ‘free gift’ (I HATE that term, BTW…sounds cheap, like an infomercial.) you still have eternal life, but it is eternal life separated from God, ie, Gehenna, or Hell. So it does not change the position of losing your salvation. Salvation and eternal life are two different things.

FP:

Please read the next paragraph i wrote in reply to you’re attempt to answer my question:

I think that the only way your belief can be true and Jesus’ words can be true at the same time is this: If the word Jesus used for believes actually means to continually believe. The word he used in Aramaic was translated as the Greek word* Pisteuo.* I do not know what the Latin translation of the word is. Does anyone know if the meaning of this word in context means to continually believe?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… 1) Do you think it is permissible in our Lord’s view to exegete God’s Word by attempting to interpret individual Bible verses in isolation without harmonizing them with the the entirety of His Word?

Absolutely not! When a passage seems either vague or ambiguous, the wise thing to do is to interpret that passage in the light of another passage which teaches the same thing but is neither vague nor ambiguous.

Biblical interpretation is both a science and an art. It is a science because there are certain methods one must adopt to do it correctly. It is an art because the more you do it correctly the better you get at it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… 2) Do you think it is possible to lose your salvation after you have attained it? Let’s look again at the parable in Matthew 18:23-35.
…

I think that in applying the science of Biblical interpretation it is unwise to use a vague or ambiguous passage (such as a parable) to interpret a clearer passage, such as a word of instruction, as our blessed Lord and Savior is giving us.

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
(John 5:24)

This passage is much easier to understand than a parable that illustrates (but does not explain) the same truth.

An example would be the parable of the sower and the seed. After telling the parable to the crowds, he explained what it meant to the Twelve. Parables make you think of questions; instruction gives you answers. Would you agree?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Let’s take a look at Romans 11:17-24. In this passage, Paul is talking about the incorporation of the Gentiles into God’s covenant love as a wild olive shoot being grafted into a cultivated olive tree. …

John 5:24

24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Romans 11:17-2411Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! 13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!Low:

Thank you for trying to answer my question. I was asking you to show me the meaning of John 5:24. However, comparing these two passages, it seems that Paul’s words in Romans do not really explain the meaning of Christ’s words in John. It’s a case of comparing apples to oranges, i think.

It appears that Jesus is explaining how a person receives eternal life and at what point in time she receives this gift (that is, he is explaining the salvation of individuals). Paul is explaining how God is dealing with groups of people (that is, salvation on a corporate level). He might be making an objection to what some Protestants teach today under the name of Replacement Theology.

To put it simply: Jesus is talking about how and when you and i receive eternal life. Paul is talking about whether God is through helping the nation of Israel, yet. If you look at the history, there were many Jewish opponents of Paul who said that God saves only Jewish people. Before a person can get into heaven, they would argue, that person must be circumcised. They must first become Jewish before they can become Christians, because God’s chosen people are the Jewish people.

Paul was teaching that this is not the case. Yes, God is not through with the Jewish nation, but he does not save a person simply because that person is born into the Jewish nation. He is saying this is the same for Gentiles, too. Do you agree that just because a person is born into a Catholic family, that person does not automatically get into heaven? God has no grandchildren. Each person must decide, for herself, whether she will trust and live for Jesus and become one of the Father’s adopted kids.

To summarize: You have not explained what John 5:24 means, even though you have given some helpful additional information.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You left out something VERY important in your citation. Allow me to include it for you:*-- Jesus Christ to his Apostles (John 14:15-17)*Jesus is talking specifically to the Apostles at the Last Supper. He’s not staring off into space, dreamy-eyed, he’s talking to the first 12 members of his Church. …

That is actually an extremely good point that appears to resolve the contradiction between Christ’s words and the belief that a person can lose her salvation.

“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”*-- Jesus Christ (John 14:15-17)*Reading Jesus’ words in context, he is saying this not to a crowd of people, but to the 11 remaining apostles (Judas had left them at this point). Jesus, being both man and God, is likely looking down the corridor of time and seeing how each of the men to whom he is speaking will remain faithful to him and follow him even to death. Hence, for these men, it is true that the Holy Spirit will remain with them forever.

Excellent point, Japhy!

It’s amazing how the Socratic Method of asking questions about every belief can help me see truths i never realized before. If i had come here just to win some kind of debate and not ask why what you believe is true i might have walked away without learning anything.

Before i came to this forum i was convinced a person could not lose his salvation. Now i see how Christ’s words in John 14 are ambiguous (that is, they can be taken to mean two different things). You have shown me how the Catholic view, and that of some Protestants who believe the same about this one doctrine, might actually be true.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… It is hard to just read one passage and see its meaning. For example, just before your selected verses, it says, “If in my name you ask (me) for anything, I will do it.” Taken by itself, it hardly seems true. “I asked for X and didn’t get it, and I asked in Jesus’ name,” a person could say. The problem is not the bible, but the entirely of understanding. …

Yes, definitely. Using your example, if i were to ask about the meaning of John 14:11-14:

11"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."You would be wise to find another Scripture that says the same thing but is more clear. For example, you might quote 1 John 5:13-15:

13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.You might then point out that John, who wrote both quoted texts, clarifies Jesus’ words by saying that God gives us anything that we ask “according to his will”. That is, if God wants us to have it, all we have to do is ask.

You could then go on to explain that when Jesus said he would give us anything for which we ask in his name, that he meant in the power and authority of his name. For example, if a police officer were to say, “Stop in the name of the law” he would mean that we should obey him because the law gives him the authority to demand we do so. By asking in Jesus’ name, we are asking that, if Jesus allows, that he will give such and such to us. I imagine we can ask for anything we want, but God can (and should) give us one of three answers: yes, no, or wait.

===========================

With this in mind, Pug, can you think of a passage of the Bible that says the same thing as our blessed Lord and Savior’s words in John 5:24 in a more clear and cogent way?

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…I will be on silent retreat for most of the weekend (starting tomorrow afternoon). Silent = no computer. Pray for the success of my retreat.

Sorry, i did not read the last sentence of your reply. I will pray God’s will will be done!

Can anyone else think of another passage of the Bible that explains John 5:24?

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Catholics describe grace as being infused into our soul (and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit brings this grace). It is not merely imputation, it is actual grace and actual transformation. We are not merely regarded as holy, but we actually become holy. This fullness of grace is a quality or state of being that we also refer to as eternal life. We can have that quality now.

Does the fact that it is “eternal” negate the possibility of losing it? Is that a contradiction of terms? If someone loses eternal life, was it never “eternal” in the first place? This is a stumbling block that I tripped over when I was a Protestant. This is actually to misunderstand how the word “eternal” is modifying the word “life.” The word “eternal” is not describing the duration of something we can have. It is describing the nature of something that we can have. Whether we have it or not is a matter of whether we remain in Christ.

Peace,
petra

Cool, Rocky (petra = rock?)

I’m not an expert in Greek or Latin. Do you know the meaning of the word translated eternal in the Greek or Latin of the ancient text?

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
When i looked it up, this is what i found.

Aionios; eternal, belonging to the *anion, *time in its duration, that is constant, abiding, eternal. Used when referring to eternal life, the life which is God’s and hence not affected by the limitations of time. … Meanings: (1) Having neither beginning nor end … (2) Without end … (3) … eternal fire [which] refers to the miraculous fire from heaven which destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha… but also … that everlasting fire … which awaits the ungodly … (4) … the ages of the world, the times since the beginning of the world’s existence …
I did not see any definition that matches your definition of eternal. If you are a student of Greek, can you enlighten me?

 

[japhy]

Reading Jesus’ words in context, he is saying this not to a crowd of people, but to the 11 remaining apostles (Judas had left them at this point).

D’oh! Thanks for keeping me honest. If I’d remembered chapter 14 comes after chapter 13, where Judas leaves, perhaps I wouldn’t have made that silly mistake.

Peace.

 

[guanophore]

I think that in applying the science of Biblical interpretation it is unwise to use a vague or ambiguous passage (such as a parable) to interpret a clearer passage, such as a word of instruction, as our blessed Lord and Savior is giving us.

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
(John 5:24)

This passage is much easier to understand than a parable that illustrates (but does not explain) the same truth.

An example would be the parable of the sower and the seed. After telling the parable to the crowds, he explained what it meant to the Twelve. Parables make you think of questions; instruction gives you answers. Would you agree?

There are a couple problems with this post that I can see. One is, what are you using as your standard of what is “wise” or “unwise” in hermeneutics? Secondly, you claim that a parable is vague, or ambiguous. How did you come up with that? Especially in regard to THIS parable, which DOES come with an explanation from our Lord. I just cannot fathom how, given that Jesus went on to interpret for his bone headed disciples, you could say it is “unwise” to use for instruction, vague, or ambiguous. Thirdly, Jesus used parables for instruction. The truth found in them is of no less value than more direct comments he made. Separating them, and implying that the parables were not instruction is inappropriate.

 

[Tom]

If you try to base your understanding of Christian salvation upon a single, few, or select group of scriptures you will come away with an errant view. All passages relative to a topic as well as the historically verifiable teachings of the Church have to be considered in order to gain a correct understanding.
Reading the entire New Testament would begin to put these passages into a better context for your understanding.

CM is absolutely correct. As Catholics we read Scripture with a contextual approach. Keeping each verse within the context of ALL Scripture. Most errors begin with taking Scripture out of its’ intended context. We could give thousands of incorrect interpretations which were the result of taking Scripture out of context. Given sufficient time I could “prove” any point of view using Scripture (out of context).

 

[guanophore]

I’m wondering what your thoughts are on the meaning of these words of our Lord and Savior:

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”

(John 5:24)

and also these words:

“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”

(John 14:15-17)

I’m curious as to the Roman Catholic understanding of them. It’s an important question to me personally.

John 5:24
However, comparing these two passages, it seems that Paul’s words in Romans do not really explain the meaning of Christ’s words in John. It’s a case of comparing apples to oranges, i think.

Can you please explain which are apples,and which are oranges, and why?

It appears that Jesus is explaining how a person receives eternal life and at what point in time she receives this gift (that is, he is explaining the salvation of individuals).

I am interested to know how it appears that way to you. Why do you have to make it so that it is talking about 'what point"? This is why you appear to be looking at salvation as OSAS or as if it occurs at a point in time, instead of as a process. I think your fundamental premis is in error, and that is why it does not seem to fit with Paul’s comments. You have already stated that you understand it is important to take the whole of scriputre, but then you keep coming up with reasons why other verses don’t apply!

Paul is explaining how God is dealing with groups of people (that is, salvation on a corporate level). He might be making an objection to what some Protestants teach today under the name of Replacement Theology.

This is in error because salvation does not happen to groups. It happens to individuals.

To put it simply: Jesus is talking about how and when you and i receive eternal life.

No, Socrates, He is not. He is talking about obedience, and it being essential to eternal life.

Paul is talking about whether God is through helping the nation of Israel, yet. If you look at the history, there were many Jewish opponents of Paul who said that God saves only Jewish people. Before a person can get into heaven, they would argue, that person must be circumcised. They must first become Jewish before they can become Christians, because God’s chosen people are the Jewish people.

It is a convenient way to dispense the verses, so that you don’t have to look at the verses you have chosen in the light of them.

Do you agree that just because a person is born into a Catholic family, that person does not automatically get into heaven?

Yes.

To summarize: You have not explained what John 5:24 means, even though you have given some helpful additional information.

I think, Socrates, since you are unwiling to accept the guidance of the Church in this matter,that you will interpret the verses in whatever way you see fit. Therefore, no explanations that are contrary to your preformed ideas will be to any avail.

 

[Melchior]

Surely someone can deal with the pasaage directly. Yes, we all know you can’t take a verse in isolation. But Jesus words rank pretty high up on the list to not dance around. Please some Catholic, other than me , answer Socrates question directly, it is not un-Catholic to exegete a passage or verse. It is a copout to pretend that is a protestant thing. Jesus words seem pretty clear here. It is not a difficult passage. And one does not have to go down the dreaded OSAS trail (which is as much a conversation stopper as calling an opponent a Nazi - on this board).

Dave

 

[guanophore]

I’m wondering what your thoughts are on the meaning of these words of our Lord and Savior:

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”

(John 5:24)

and also these words:

“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”

(John 14:15-17)

I’m curious as to the Roman Catholic understanding of them. It’s an important question to me personally.

I am curious why this is important to you personally. I wonder if you are trying to reinforce your belief that baptism is not not required? However, I will post some ideas about pistis here

The term used in John 5:24 is Greek “pistis”. This is most often interpreted in the New Testament as a firm persuasion, or conviction. It is linked with hearing the gospel

14 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 And how can men preach unless they are sent?"
Rom 10:14-15

After hearing such preaching, as the crowd on Pentecost, (Acts) the hearers are graced with a firm persuasion or conviction (they were cut to the heart). This type of persuasion (faith) immediately leads the hearer to take some action, usually to be baptized, as the Eunich, and the house of Cornelius.

The word is “pistis” is also used of (a) trust, , Rom 3:25; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14,17; 2 Cor 1:24; Gal 3:23; Phil 1:25; 2:17; 1 Thess 3:2; 2 Thess 1:3; 3:2; . This indicates that it is not just a mental assent, but a matter of the heart.

There are three main elements of this pistis found in scripture that especially stand out when the noun “pistis” is used next to a verb. The first of these is that mentioned above; a firm conviction, producing a full acknowledgement of God’s revelation or truth, e. g., 2 Thess 2:11-12. the second is a personal surrender to Him, John 1:12 (what must we do to be saved indicates the listener has come to a firm conviction that he needs to be saved, and is looking for direction.) Faith is also conduct inspired by such surrender, 2 Cor 5:7. This third understanding of faith is the main area where Protestant belief diverges from Catholic teaching.

I think this has been just an exercise in word study for me, Socrates, since it seems to me that you have already made up your mind to reject Catholic teaching. However, I hope I am wrong!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Here is a strang use of the word pistis:

Joh 5:15 The3588 man444 departed,565 and2532 told312 the3588 Jews2453 that3754 it was2076 Jesus,2424
** which had** made4100him846 whole.5199

 

[guanophore]

can you think of a passage of the Bible that says the same thing as our blessed Lord and Savior’s words in John 5:24 in a more clear and cogent way?

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”

Yes! Luke 6:47
47 Every one who comes to me and hears my words and does them…

The word “hear” in both verses is “akouo” . It is the same word where we get our word “acoustic”. Now, we know that just “hearing” (sound going into the ear) will not in itself produce faith. But if the words are heard and met with faith, then salvation will follow.

Hearing paired with faith produces action. For example, God “hears” our prayers, and therefore, answers them. (John 9:31; 1 John 5:14,15) .

When Jesus speaks about listening to Him “eisakouo” it means not just the physical act of hearing, but to listen, and to obey. The one who hears and does not obey (become baptized) is like one who looks at himself in a mirror, then walks away, forgetting…

" But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing. "
James 1:22-25

Do you STILL think that Jesus is teaching faith alone!

 

[japhy]

Can anyone else think of another passage of the Bible that explains John 5:24?

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”

There are two ways of understanding this statement of Jesus; one follows from a belief in universal predestination (God has destined some of us to salvation and some of us to condemnation), the other follows from a belief in the active participation of each person in the life of grace and faith offered to us by God.

Consider: “Whoever crosses the finish line first has the gold medal.” Does one have the gold medal before finishing the race? No, the gold medal is the result for completing the race first.

Consider: “Whoever crosses the finish line first has great speed.” Does one have great speed before finishing the race? Yes, winning the race is the result of being tall.

So which is Jesus saying? Which is the cause, the belief or the eternal life? Catholics believe the former, that eternal life is the result of belief in Jesus Christ; many Protestant denominations believe the latter, that only those who have eternal life can (and will) believe in Jesus. They see “eternal life” as a line (that is, stretching infinitely in both directions) rather than as a ray (that is, an infinite length with a definite starting point).

As for passages of Scripture that support the Catholic doctrine in this regard, I find Peter’s shaky history an excellent example. Let’s go through a series of pericopes and try to determine the status of Peter’s “eternal life”:

So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Matt 10:32-33, cf. Luke 12:8-9)

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 16:15-17)

Jesus said to him, “Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And so said all the disciples. (Matt 26:34-35)

Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean."
And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man."
After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know the man."
And immediately the cock crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly. (Matt 26:69-75)

if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us. (2 Tim 2:12)

So, did Peter have eternal life when he professed, by the grace of God, that Jesus was the Christ? How could Peter have professed that Jesus was Christ in the midst of the Apostles (either gaining eternal life, or as a sign he has eternal life) and denied Jesus in front of many witnesses (clearly an act for which he would be denied by Jesus)?

 

[JoeyWarren]

*The famous verse, John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” *

The not-so-famous verse, John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son, will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”

 

[petra]

Cool, Rocky (petra = rock?)

I’m not an expert in Greek or Latin. Do you know the meaning of the word translated eternal in the Greek or Latin of the ancient text?
“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
When i looked it up, this is what i found.

Aionios; eternal, belonging to the *anion, *time in its duration, that is constant, abiding, eternal. Used when referring to eternal life, the life which is God’s and hence not affected by the limitations of time. … Meanings: (1) Having neither beginning nor end … (2) Without end … (3) … eternal fire [which] refers to the miraculous fire from heaven which destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha… but also … that everlasting fire … which awaits the ungodly … (4) … the ages of the world, the times since the beginning of the world’s existence …
I did not see any definition that matches your definition of eternal. If you are a student of Greek, can you enlighten me?

Hi Socrates,

Yes, I aspire to be a little rock.

Thank you for asking for clarification. I didn’t explain this very well. I’m not suggesting that the word “eternal” has a different definition. I’m suggesting that the way it modifies the word “life” is different that what you assume. I am not a Greek scholar. My understanding is based on the whole of scripture and sacred tradition.

What I means is:

1. If you love and obey God…then you have “something”.
2. “Something” (if you have it) = eternal life

However, it isn’t the having of that “something” that is automatically eternal…it is that the nature of this “something” is eternal, if we have it. While on this earth, we are called to persevere so that, as Paul puts it, we will not be disqualified from the race. Our actions can nullify the application of grace upon our soul. Hebrews 10:26: “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” While on this earth, there is always the potential of doing so. The author of Hebrews exhorts us to persevere to the end. Hebrews 10:36: “For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.”

St. John speaks much about the need for us to remain in Christ as a condition of our salvation. John 1:1-6: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower. He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and everyone that does he prunes so that it bears more fruit. You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you. Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.” One cannot “remain” in Christ if one is not authentically in Christ” to begin with. Thus, there is the potential that authentic Christians may not remain in Christ and be separated from God. This may occur through any number of deadly sins that John talks about in his first epistle (hating our brother, loving the world, refusing compassion, denying we have sin, denying the Son, etc).

Peace,

petra

 

[petra]

Socrates,

There is also another problem with the idea that salvation can never be lost. John writes, “I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13). This means that we can presently know that we are in a state of grace and in Christ. Ironically, the doctrine of “Eternal Security” cannot provide this assurance, and Catholic doctrine can. Let me explain with the following scenario:

Bill responds to an invitation to receive Christ. He goes forward during an altar call and prays the sinner’s prayer with the pastor. Afterward, the pastor shares 1 John 5:13 with Bill and tells him that he is saved for all eternity and he can know that because God tells us we can have that assurance. He warns Bill not to let doubts creep in and to stand firm in that assurance. So Bill feels assured and believes that he is saved for all eternity. Some years later, Bill drifted away from God. He eventually had an affair, started drinking more, and cheated a few people in business. There didn’t seem to be any indication that he was being convicted by the Holy Spirit. He still believed in God, but he loved his lifestyle and didn’t have any intention of turning from it. He rationalized his behavior with various excuses. He thought, “Well, no one is perfect, and I believe that God is a God of love.”

Many Protestants would say that such a person was never really saved. A real Christian could never do those things—or at least for very long without being tormented by conviction. So given that none of us know the future, how can anyone have assurance of eternal life? In the once-saved, always-saved paradigm, assurance can only be retrospective, looking back at one’s life at the moment of death. I don’t think that is what John intended when he said we can have assurance.

Catholic theology allows true assurance of salvation. Granted, because we do not know the future, we cannot presume to say definitively that we will persevere to the end and die in a state of grace. We pray for the grace to always follow Christ. However, we can have full assurance that we are PRESENTLY in a state of grace—that eternal life presently dwells in us. Catholics can KNOW they are saved right now.

Peace,
petra