Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #44

This is the continuation of my conversation with Raymond Woodward. This being a bit longer, because his response was rather lengthy and in my response to him I tried to address a number of his points. All the points basically come back to a question of authority, who can authoritatively interpret Scripture…in other words, who has the authority to decide a dispute between two Christians as to a matter of Scripture interpretation. The individual? If so, which individual? By what authority? That is the question I ask him several times.

But, he had a number of points that you may run into here and there, so I thought it would be instructive to address them. Although, I limited my response in several places to try and keep this from getting too out of hand.

His email starts things off, and it is a response to my email which appears in the last issue. My response follows his.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

John,

I’ve taken most of a week reading and re-reading your writings, searching Holy Scripture, and praying. I perceive that there’s still a lot arguing past each other — straw men on both sides, mostly unintended ones, I think.

Frankly, I started off arguing against a point that you evidently weren’t making. Simultaneously you thought that I believed or said a number of things that I don’t believe, and never intended to convey. We’ve both fired a lot of ammunition into thin air, missing each other’s positions by a wide margin, e.g. my treatment of your use of “faith plus works” and your treatment of several of my responses to your questions.

So, let me briefly restate what I believe, bearing in mind that I don’t speak for all Protestants, far from it. Protestantism, by origin and nature, takes in a diverse & independent-minded spectrum of doctrines, some of which I just don’t believe. My only goal is to get to what The Bible teaches about how people end up in Heaven or Hell — how they’re finally saved or not. For the record, I believe that Heaven and Hell are absolutely real, and they are the only two destinations on the eternal map.

I can sum up my belief on this question by simply quoting the old familiar John 3:16-18, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the wold, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

There’s a lot to say beyond that, of course, but I believe that the threshold conditions for eternal salvation or damnation are entirely laid out right there.

To clarify, when I say “saved”, I mean going to Heaven. When I say “justified”, I mean judicially declared “saved” by the imputation of Jesus’ perfection in place of my imperfection (sin).

For the record, I do believe that there are plenty of Roman Catholics in Heaven and still more going there. I’m just not sure we agree on the reasons why.

Honestly, I’m still not entirely sure what Roman Catholics believe. You stated several times several ways that you believe that “they are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus”, “…nothing comes before the ‘point of salvation’…whether faith or works merits salvation for us. We believe that we are saved by God’s free gift of His grace that comes to us through Baptism…the washing of regeneration by the Holy Spirit…”. But then you say “…salvation is a process…the process doesn’t end there…” Next, we must contribute some measure of good works to close the deal, if I follow you correctly. I won’t try to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like salvation or damnation isn’t settled until after we die – that initial justifcation is incomplete. Right? Wrong? You tell me. I’ll proceed as if I pretty well have that right.

I believe that the overwhelming message of the Bible is still summed up in John 3:16-18, that for His glory, God Almighty planned from eternity past to display His unimagineable love, mercy, grace, and power by making the impossible possible — by redeeming sinners (that’s ALL of us, including infants) who would 1) recognize their hopelessly imperfect state, 2) repent as best they could, 3) accept by deeply-committed faith the irreversible gift of the imputed righteousness of Christ. (In everything I’ve written before, “faith” or “believe” presupposes that repentance issue – it’s faith that Jesus can and will save me because I need saving.)

(Parenthetically, no I do not believe that babies are conceived or born innocent before God. I really want to believe that they are sinless, I still hope that God has some special dispensation for them, especially for babies murdered by the atrocity of abortion, but I can’t find it in the Bible. So, either I believe The Bible, or I don’t.)

Since neither of us believes The Bible contradicts itself, we have to look at Scripture in its own context, not in selected fragments, and do so consistently. I contend that there’s an unmistakable pattern that’s established by dozens of scriptures — 1) faith, believing, whatever you want to call it, precedes good works and 2) good works are the result of a saving relationship with The Lord, and 3) it’s divine power that keeps the true believer to the end and empowers the good works. First, let’s look at “faith” or “believing” once more from a selection of scriptures, remembering that this is just a selected, not exhaustive list.

I’ll get to your rebuttals of scriptures I cited in a little later, but let’s look at some more core scripture first. Remember that no single scripture anywhere stands apart from any other — it’s all about Biblical context.

There’s John 3: 16-18 above. It says what it says, and no more. Elsewhere in John on the primacy of faith: 5:24; 5:36-40; 6:26-29; 6:35-40; 6: 45-48; 7: 37-39; 8:23-24; 10: 35-41; 11:25, 38-41; 12: 35-36; 12: 44-49; 16: 5-11 (especially 9); 16: 25-28; 17: 20-22; 20: 28-29.

Sixteen times in the Gospel of John, alone, Jesus names faith or believing as the key condition for being “one of His”, without ever mentioning finishing a process by good works. Note that I just don’t have time to go thru the same exercise with the other gospels, but I highly recommend it to anyone who really wants to know what God thinks; that, naturally, is a protestant tendency — go read the Bible for yourself; be like the Bereans!

In every case, the threshold condition that Jesus, Himself, named is belief — faith. Certainly much is said in the Bible about works, so while we’re here, let’s look at how Jesus, Himself, puts faith and works together. The single clearest example in John is probably in 14: 9-24, note especially V.12: “I tell you the turth anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.”; V.15 “If you love me, you will obey what I command…” What did The Lord just say? He said that if we have faith, THEN we will do something. He said that if we love Him, THEN we will obey. Then notice V.21 where He flips it around, explaining how to spot someone who is one of His: “Whoever has my commands and obeys, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him …” There is a Cause, and then there is an Effect. Which is which? Which is primary and which is secondary? Good works are presented an effect, not a contributing cause of salvation.

Remember that the first sixteen scriptures listed above don’t even mention works unto themselves. And these aren’t complex, elaborate, Pauline-style statements; they’re really quite simple.

Nevertheless, that leaves open the question of what happens if we quit obeying, quit loving Him. Since we’re here, let’s let John speak again. John 6:35-45 speaks powerfully on the question of enduring in true faith, particularly verses 37-40. Verses 39-40 just about say it all — that it’s The Father’s will and Jesus’ job to preserve those who come to committed belief in Jesus.

That is NOT a declaration of cheap, lazy grace. It is a painfully humbling recognition that only by divine power can a natural-born sinner become or remain a genuine believer, that you and I are utterly inadequate to the task.

But there’s more of the same thought in John: 8: 33-36; 14: 1-4; and notice 10: 25-30 in particular: “…and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand…” Unless you and I are NOT someone, then we fall in the category of “no one”, do we not? And notice that in none of these scriptures is there an exception clause which says or implies that I’m the only “someone” who can overcome Jesus grasp on my soul, nor which says that it’s all true IF I perform some list of sacraments, good works, whatever. It’s so clear, so simple, so emphatic, and ALL straight from the mouth of Jesus, Himself, without even getting back to Roman 3 & 4,yet.

While we’re in The Gospel of John, you rightly pointed out Jesus teaching on the vine and the branches, but you seem to assume that “the branches” are New Testament believers. Is that necessarily true? Through much of The Bible, Israel is represented by the vine: Ps 80:8-16; Isa 5:1-7; Jer 2:21 are examples. In fact, if you read it a little more deeply, I think this teaching operates at two levels: 1) first an ominous warning about ethnic Israel being “cut off” as of the arrival of Christ, and 2) a practical warning to the disciples that they must never stray far from Jesus Himself if they hope to be fruitful. We learn from Ananias and Saphira that if we bear fruit that is rotten enough, we might even meet an early death, but even that account lacks any indication that a genuine believer lost their eternal salvation. Finally, notice how John 15: 1-17 ends with a strong implication (though not an explicit promise) that Jesus is set to superintend the disciples’ fruit-bearing efforts.

With Him in charge, what is the likely outcome? And if the branches that are to be cut off and burned are genuine New Testament believers, then we have to ask if Jesus chose poorly; it does say He chose them. Does Jesus just choose a random sample and let them thrash it out?

Finally, while we’re in the Book of John, look at 12: 35-50 for two reasons. First, it just reiterates Jesus’ instruction to “put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become the sons of light…”, unlike the Jews of whom Isaiah is quoted saying that their great failure was they would not believe in Him. The second reason is simply to point out what I’ll discuss more in a moment – that much of Isaiah’s prophecy is Messianic and must be considered in that light.

By now, you might be screaming at your computer, “What about Hebrews 6?!?!” I used to scream the same thing at Baptists, but it turns out that there’s an easy, Biblically sound answer to that: Hebrews 6 argues FOR God’s keeping of His children through a common philosophical technique called reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity). Paul happens to use this technique with some frequency, and the point here is that if we accept the wrong premise that God will allow us to be saved, then be lost, then the only remedy would be the absurd conclusion that Jesus would have to find another (and in literal English) different sacrifice to makes things whole again.

I’m about to get back to your rebuttal of the scriptures I cited, but I want to stop here and consider what Jesus Himself said, just in the Gospel of John. It seems clear that the Good News is so much better news than I think you recognize. In literal English, Greek verb tenses accounted for, it is that “God had always so loved the world that at a point in time He gave His only Son that whoever might be in the habit of believing in The Son, should be never perish but always have eternal life.” That’s it. That is the core of The Gospel.

He loves all of us that much. Don’t ask me how! I don’t even like me lots of days, much less love the whole world, but praise God that He’s not like me.

Absolutley YES there are good works to be done, but the sweet part is that Jesus Himself empowers and directs the work (so He gets the glory), and Jesus Himself is charged w/ the responsibility of keeping everyone whom The Father has given to Jesus (so the Father gets the glory).

Consider Noah’s Ark. The Ark (not Noah) is one of the OT typologies of Christ. It was built according to God’s plan, in His timing, from the materials that He provided. It’s occupants were lead into it by Him; they were sealed in it by Him; they were provided for while in it by Him. They were carried safely through judgement (water) in it by Him and released from it into a purified world after judgement had passed.

Sure, while we’re in His boat, there are proprieties and protocols to observe, there are “chores” to do, but it’s all WAY too big and too perfect for us sink, for us to redirect, much less construct.

Another, less obvious OT typology: Exodus 33:22 and vicinity when Moses wanted to see God’s glory. The Lord said (in a poor modern paraphrase), “OK, but you can’t do that now and survive, so when I pass by, I will put you in the cleft of a rock, and I will cover you with my hand.” What rock? Christ. God didn’t tell Moses to go find a cleft, crawl in it, turn his head this way or that, cover his face thusly. The Father took care of all that. These are all over the place in the Old Testament, and it’s always the provision of The Father to His adoptive children.

One more thing and then back to your rebuttal: Eph 1:5, Ro 8:17 & 23, Ro 9:4, Gal 3: 29, Gal 4:7 (and more) all talk of believers being adopted co-heirs with Christ, heirs of “the promise”, “adopted as sons”, etc.. This is extraordinarily powerful scripture to me because my only child – our son – is adopted. We poured a LOT of time and money into finding and adopting him. We started praying and seeking a child long before he existed. We sought him out, and completed the adoption process at enormous cost to us. Actually, it was a judicial declaration that made him permanently my son, even though he wasn’t natually so. I first laid eyes on him when he was 2 1/2 days old, and from that moment, he has been and will always be my child. He could not be any more my child if he had gestated in my abodomen. Sometimes he is my greatest joy. Much of the time, he’s just a normal kid for whom I have responsibility to direct, encourage, discipline, train – a hassle. On occassions, has disappointed me, shocked me, infuriated me, and brought painful discipline on himself, but he is always my son. He didn’t make himself my child; he cannot un-make himself my child. He might one day disown me, Heaven forbid, but I will never disown him. My greatest hopes and worst fears are rolled into the future of that kid; I would give almost anything to make him turn out “right” if I had the power to do so.

Clearly, my abilities to discipline, direct, encourage, protect, and empower are grossly limited; God’s are not. My patience and wisdom are famously limited; God’s are famously not. Put that together with the Parable of the Prodigal Son and what do you have?

There’s more — when our son was an energetic little boy (instead of a lazy know-it-all teenager), he always wanted to “help Dad” do everything. He helped me mow the yard by riding on my shoulders while I pushed the stinking mower. He “helped” me build a shop by butchering lumber that I would have used if I’d gotten to it first. Not much productive work there, but it was the greatest time of my life because he just wanted to be involved in whatever I was doing, and I relished that in a way that I still cannot describe.

IF I follow your doctrine, John, I think your concept of God is far too small and far too eager to condemn. I believe He wants you to work with Him because He relishes the time with you in ways that we cannot conceive, much less describe. I just don’t believe that Jesus died a hideous death so He could watch you walk a tight-rope from your initial justification to the end of a salvation process. If I truly love my toddler son, would I have left it to him to make his way across a busy highway? How much more so would our Perfect Heavenly Father watch out for His children?

Now back to scripture and why I believe so, along with replies to your comments.

I guess you’ll have to be more specific for me about Baptism, and I really don’t intend to plumb the depths of “baptism” here unless you argue that the physical act, itself, is a necessary condition for salvation. I’m not sure exactly what you teach about that, but first, I’m pretty sure that this is the ONLY place in the NT where it says “baptism saves” apart from anything else (like faith, believing, etc.), and it says that ONLY if you stop reading before the end of the verse. Taken entirely out of context of the rest of scripture, this verse could mean that the physical act of getting wet permanently saves souls, but that’s not what you mean, is it? And as described above, Noah and friends were saved “through” the flood – despite the flood, not by it.

Baptism is is very commonly mentioned in the NT, of course, in association w/ salvation, but unless you get hyper-literal about it, it can refer to the physical act (as a public declaration of committment to Christ), or more commonly it’s used in the figurative sense of completely soaking oneself with the essence of Christ. Even the latter half of that same verse clarifies leads us that way by further defining this baptism as “…an appeal to God for a good conscience – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” We agree that baptism is enormously important as a public declaration of identification with Christ. Jesus did say that He would deny anyone before the Father who denied Him before men (Matt 10:33), no doubt.

But hyper-literalism here gets you in trouble several ways, not the least of which is that I Cor 10: 1-2 says that “…all were baptized into Moses…” which so far I can find, never actually happened. It’s precisely the same Greek word and verb tense found in I Pet 3:21, Gal 3:27, I Cor 12:13, I Cor 10: 1-4, Acts 8:14, Ro 6:3, and several other places. The other problem is fitting a hyper-literal approach to baptism into all that scripture in John and those like Acts 16:31 where the jailer asked Paul & Silas what he must do to be saved, and they replied “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…” Subsequent to that, the jailer’s family was baptized, just like the Ethiopian eunuch who had just heard and accepted the Gospel, and so many others.

Regarding Ephesians 2: 8-10, I can only tell you that it says what it says. You’ll have to adapt your doctrine to it somehow or find a better way to explain it away. But before we leave it, please note that if you dig deep enough to honor the original Greek construction, the word “saved” was the Greek sesosmenoi in a perfect particple passive voice, which in literal English means that this salvation already took place at some unnamed but particular past time, continues in force to the present, and was accomplished by someone else (passive voice). The “someone else” is, of course, God.

I’m no Greek / Hebrew scholar, but I do have a shelf full of references by people who are, and they all come to the same conclusion. I heartily recommend an NASB Study Bible compiled and edited by Sprios Zodhiates, who is a Greek & Hebrew scholar. It’s published by AMG Publishers, and Zodhiates does a wonderful job of getting back to the authors’ original meaning — lots of text notes, explanations, lexical aids, etc.

Regarding Romans 3: 10-23, we seem to disagree on what I called “absolute qualifiers” where Paul assembles OT verses saying “…there is no one righteous…no one who understands…no one who seeks God…no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law…” Do I think that he means NO one? Yes, I think that’s pretty much the point when speaking of pre-regenerate souls. (This is a key point at which you and I were missing each other, I think.) John the Baptist might stand as the only exception only because he was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb.

Further, I believe that The Bible, taken in its complete context teaches that Zechariah and Elizabeth, for examples, were righteous at two levels, neither of which meant true perfect righteousness. First, they were doubtless very honorable, devout people who deeply revered and feared God. Secondly and more important, they were righteous in the same manner as everybody else who was under The Law — their faith was credited to them as righteousness (Hebrews 11, again).

You asked about Paul and Peter. But both were “righteous” or justified – saved – after they met and bowed to Jesus. Neither the Apostle Paul nor I ever said that no one was EVER righteous in God’s sight at any time. That’s obviously silly.

This is a great example of the why I avoid hyper-literal interpretation of scripture; it necessarily forces us into fragmentary, compartmentalized, even self-contradictory doctrine. If I were hyper-literal about Romans 3: 10-23, I would have to conclude that something in the Bible is just wrong – that The Bible does contradict itself.

While we’re in Romans 3 & 4, I have to say that I think you’re compartmentalizing scripture when you argue that all references to “law” here are strictly to the Mosaic Law.
I have to disagree w/ your strong dichotomy between the OT Law and post-New Testament “works”. Do you not recognize an obvious principle here? Is there no room in your doctrine for Biblical parallelisms that cross your highly-specific and narrowly-drawn lines? What was The Law but an impossibly demanding code of behavior? Does “code of behavior” sound a little like “works”? Whereas the OT Law was an expression of God’s will and nature, it was also fundamentally a list of rules. Not coincidentally, it was a list that nobody could flawlessly follow, thus requiring the system of of sacrifices and related rituals. It was ultimately an expression of God’s standard of perfection, which pointed to the need for a perfect Sacrifice Lamb — Jesus. In the overall context not only of Romans, but the whole Bible, it seems brutally obvious that any post-New Testament list of critical do’s and don’ts is just another “law” IF IT INTERPOSES ITSELF BETWEEN A SINNER AND THE SAVIOR. Worse than that, it’s substantially man-made, not God-given. At least the OT Law was hand-carved in stone twice and handed down with completely unasailable authenticity. At least the OT Law came straight from God’s mouth.

So that brings us to Galations 3. I agree that Galations was primarily written in view of first century Judaizers. That’s easy. But if that it’s only relevance, why is it here? If there’s no principle that can be applied beyond the first century, why was it cannonized? You’re getting compartmental (hyper-literal) on me now, and to your own detriment, because the clear message of Galations 3 is one of profoundly good news, and it IS relevant in this century, even if we don’t have Judaizers in our neighborhoods.

I should hurry & wrap this up, but will return to this main point briefly at the end. For now….

As to Isaiah 64, which describes all our works as “filthy rags”. When I first brought up this scripture, I thought you were teaching that we had to earn our way into justification in the first place; I know better now, I think. Nevertheless, I think you need to relook the context you mentioned. That’s clearly a Messianic prophesy if you get a running start in Chap 63, and notice the pronouns — “us, we, and ours”, not “they, them, and theirs”. So I don’t think you can ascribe that prophecy to recalcitrant Old Testment Jews. It’s clearly a reference to humankind viewed across the span of human history. While I do NOT believe that it applies the those “good works that He has prepared in advance for us to do”, I think it’s teaching on self-directed good works is too simple to miss. It is a glaring malediction against the arrogant idea that we can scurry about and accumulate enough brownie points and merit badges to earn God’s favor on our own. I think we agree on that.

Regarding my citation of James, I think you misunderstood what I meant to convey. The real point is in James 2:14, “What use is it my bretheren if a man SAYS he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” If a man SAYS he has faith, but has no works, as I see it, one of two things is happening: 1) he’s a deliberate liar & there’s no need to expand on that one; 2) he has some shallow intellectual assent to the truths of the Bible, or he’s been hanging around church all his life & intellectually has the “church talk” well under control, believes that Jesus was real, so he supposes himself to be a Christian. But he’s never faced the reality of his sin, never committed himself to The Savior, and in some vague way has deluded himself into thinking he’s OK with God. This second scenario is miserably real to me. I lived it for the first twenty-eight years of my life. So I was in the same category of the demons mentioned in V.19 to the extent that the intellectual part was in place, but the Lordship of Christ wasn’t.

Read James 2:18 carefully: “…show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my FAITH BY MY WORKS…” The works are presented as the out-working, or evidence of a soul that’s been “born again”, but what James is really looking for is FAITH. An analogy: a corpse is a body; a live human is likewise a body; but one is dead and decaying while the other goes about full of life. So any supposed faith that doesn’t go about generally full of life, is still a sort of faith, but it’s a corpse. Hey, trust me; I believed absolutely that God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit were real, but didn’t give them the time of day until I was 28 years old. I had a sort of a faith, but it certainly was not a saving faith.

We can get hyper-literal here and believe that James literally means that Abraham was justified unto Heaven by his works in Verse 21, but then we run smack-dab into V. 22 which says that Abraham’s faith was working with (or through) his works which perfected or completed his faith, but faith is was the driving “push” behind the works.

Even more bluntly, Verse 23 says, “Abraham believed God and it was ceckoned to him as righteousness and he was called a friend of God.” What was credited to him as righteousness? It’s very clear, no ambiguity to it. All that talk about Abraham’s works suddenly drops out of sight. James is teaching what I initially tried to describe.

Verse 25 mentions Rahab being justified by works, but go look in Hebrews 11:31 and see the threshold condition that started it all for Rahab — sorry, but there’s that FAITH word again.

Unless you compartmentalize scripture, works are always subsequent to and descend from real, committed, saving faith of the sort that was credited to Abraham as righteousness. Unless you compartmentalize vigorously, works are NOT in view as the necessary steps to finish an incomplete salvation that was only initiated in faith.

YES, YES, YES, there is great Biblical demand for good works from those who are saved, but not in order to finish a “process” that was left incomplete by Jesus. Jesus had it right when He said “…my Father is is working to this very day…” (John 5:17), and we surely do need to get busy with His works if we want to hang around with The One who paid a gruesome price for our redemption. We also need to get busy with His works if we intend to glorify Him as we should.

But if we think we’re earning some part of our salvation, we maybe in deep trouble; at best, we’re in the same stew as the Galation church.

Look at it this way, I Peter 1: 8, obviously written to believers, says “…and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of joy.” First, there’s that word “believe” again w/ “works” nowhere in view. This is Peter, too, by the way, so he ought to have it right, right? But stop & consider, where is the inexpressible joy in a life spent walking the tight-rope between some partial, initial justification and final judgement?

In John 8:36, Jesus said, “…if The Son sets your free, you will be free indeed…” Where is the freedom in constantly checking your list of required do’s and don’ts to finish an incomplete salvation? Where is the freedom in living with the nuclear threat that you might cross some invisible line and not get right before you die? Where is the joy and freedom in having to earn any part of your eternal redemption?

Sure we have to take up our cross daily and follow, put our hands to His plow and not turn back, but that’s because we’ve declared Him to be Lord and Master, we need Him for daily strength, wisdom, direction, courage, all that. Of course there will be chastisement in this life and accounting for deeds of this life at the Bema Seat of Judgement. But where, in any of that, is it expressed or implied that Jesus’s blood didn’t quite finish the “process”?

Finally, your questions:

1) Can we be saved if we walk against God’s will and do not walk… Theoretically, yes, but not likely, and certainly NO if we fail at the “work” of bowing our knees to the lordship if Jesus Christ. Let’s face it, Peter failed, Paul did, King David did, just go down the list of those who failed at some point to walk correctly. Of all the disciples, only John even showed up at Golgotha; did they all walk in His ways all the time? Obviously not.

2) Do we need to eat the flesh of the Son and drink His blood… If you’re talking about ‘transubstantiation’ (did I spell that right?), NO! You have a LONG way to go to demonstrate from the Bible where wine and bread literally turn into His literal flesh and blood. Yes, He literally talked in those terms, but that doesn’t mean He was talking about literal meat and blood. That’s the domain of hyper-literalism. He also told his disciples to pluck out their eyes & cut off their hands if they caused sin and we don’t find many one-eyed paraplegic disciples in The Bible. But if you’re talking in the obvious figurative sense, the answer is absolutely YES. There is NO cure for our sin nature but to fully ingest the essence of Christ, to ingest and digest His precious (figurative) body and blood until they are part of us in body, soul, and spirit.

3) If a man does not care for his family, does that affect his salvation? As to final salvation or damnation, no. It will most certainly be called to account before The Throne and probably reap chastisement in this life. That’s because The Bible doesn’t say that such a man is an infidel, it says he’s worse than an infidel, which I guess we both take to be an unregenerate clod. The Bible warns that much will be expected from those who have received much, so a believer is certainly held to a higher standard than some basic heathen. As to disowning the faith, I think I addressed that above; I will always be my dad’s son, whether I like it or not. You twisted my words badly on this one.

4) In Romans 2:6-10 it states that God will give or deny eternal life to evey man according to his works…You really twisted my words on this one from my previous reply, so let’s try again. And actually, my answer is very much in line with scripture. First, check the context of Romans 2, it’s summed up in V.29 “…for he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart…” Your whole premise goes screaming out the window at that point, because Paul sums it by saying that the part that counts is in the heart, not the external do’s and don’ts. There are several other scriptures that say the same thing, but this is getting way too long. To answer anyway, if we choose to live under the law, then we must keep it perfectly or we’re toast, absolutely true, because we have thereby rejected the sacrifice of Christ which is the ultimate mistake — we’ve been legalized unto eternal hell. So, absolutely YES, that is literally true if we choose to live under some law, rather than His grace.

5) Do we automatically walk in these good works as you (Raymond) allegedly believes? Huh? John, that’s nutty. I never said anything of the sort. I said that by virtue of our relationship with Christ, there will be good works, though not flawlessly so. I’ve addressed that repeatedly in several emails, and repeatedly here.

6) Do we need to labor for the food wich endures to eternal life? Well of course we do. Once again, John, you really put the wrong words in my mouth, you sed I sed NO! Jesus told us to do so. I also need to take One-a-Day vitamins everyday but sometimes I fail to do so. In so failing, I don’t live as well as I should, might eventually become sick and die too young, but I don’t drop dead on the spot. I think you’re asking if we need to earn eternal life at some level, and I’ve far more than covered that.

7) Do we need to keep the commanments in order to have eternal life? As above, you put entirely the wrong words in my mouth, you’re 0-for-3 on that. Which commandments? The 10 Commandments? The Mosaic Law? The Great Commission? Roman Catholic Commandments? Southern Baptist do’s & don’ts? Regardless, here’s the answer: it’s precisely the same concept and answer as #4 above.

8) Do we need love in order to be saved? You’re now 0-for-4 at answering for me. Of course we need love to be saved. We need God’s love, we need to love God, we must love Jesus to stay near Him. Do we have to “love” all our neighbors as ourselves? Only if we choose to live under the law. It’s good if we can, but not many do.

Now finally, I have just three questions for you:

1) Did Jesus’ sacrifice make full atonement for your sins, once and for all? Yes or No, simple question.

2) If yes, then just what are you working for now?

3) If no, then how do you know when you’ve done enough good works to make up for the inadequacy of Jesus’ atonement?

John, I have to confess that at one point, I really wished I’d never seen your newsletter, never sent you an email, none of that. But that’s changed. I don’t know that you and I will ever fully agree on all this, but I do genuinely thank you for your time, especially knowing that I can be a too assertive, much too wordy, and too quick to judge. I still have a lot of spiritual growing to do. Anyhow, thanks for sharing your mind, your time, and your cyber-space with someone who you could just as easily have ignored. God bless.

RW

PS - I’ve struggled for a week to make this short, but complete. I don’t know that I suceeded at either, but here it comes to you….

-—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Raymond,

Again, I will simply start at the top of your response and go down paragraph by paragraph, beginning with your 3rd paragraph..

If Protestantism is, by “origin and nature,” a religious system that takes in a “diverse and independent-minded spectrum of doctrines,” then why, pray tell, are you a Protestant? You basically admit that Protestantism either contains contradictory, and thereby false doctrines, or any individual Protestant does not and cannot have the fullness of truth in Christ.

Furthermore, you admit that you do not speak for all Protestants. So, do you speak for the ones who are 100% correct in their doctrinal beliefs, or for the ones who are only partially correct in their doctrinal beliefs? Are there any Protestants who are 100% correct in their doctrinal beliefs? Do you not see the inherent confusion inherent in your own statements?

Is the religious system, the church, founded by Jesus Christ, by it’s “origin and nature” a religious system that takes in a “diverse and independent-minded spectrum of doctrines?” If so, where do I find that in the Bible?

You say that your goal is to get to “what the Bible teaches,” but how do you know that you’re doing that? Don’t all Protestants think they are doing that? Yet, you disagree with what some of the doctrines that Protestants teach. Why are you right and those Protestants who disagree with you wrong? Why should I believe you, and not believe them? Do you claim greater authority in regards to interpretation of Scripture than that of those Protestants whose doctrines you disagree with? Do you proclaim your interpretation of the Scriptures to be 100% accurate in all cases? If so, by what authority do you make such a claim? Are you the final arbiter of biblical interpretation when it comes to Protestant belief?

Regarding summing up your belief with John 3:16-18…well, I can sum up my belief by quoting that old familiar John 3:16-18, as well. I can also sum up my belief by quoting the old familiar Gal 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.” I could also sum up my belief by quoting that old familiar James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” And then there’s that old familiar Matt 19:16-17, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?…If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” I could sum up my beliefs with all of these and a number of other passages as well.

Regarding your definitions of “saved” and “justified,” aren’t they essentially the same thing? You are justified by being “judicially declared ‘saved,’” right? So then, everyone who is justified is saved, and everyone who is saved has been justified, correct? By the way, where does Scripture define the word “justified” as being “judicially declared ‘saved?’” I don’t see that anywhere in my Bible.

You state that you believe there are Roman Catholics in Heaven. Why would you believe that? I thought if someone believed what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, then they can’t be in Heaven? Aren’t they damned for believing that works play a role in one’s salvation? If someone doesn’t believe works play a role in one’s salvation, then they are not a Roman Catholic. So, how can any Roman Catholics be in Heaven?

By the way, let’s say someone is a Baptist. They believe in salvation by faith alone. You believe they are saved, right? You further believe that once they are saved, they cannot do anything to be unsaved, right? Once saved, always saved. Eternal security. Well, what if that “saved” Baptist then converts to Catholicism and starts believing that works do indeed play a role in one’s salvation? Are they still saved? Under your belief system of eternal security, they are still saved. Which means, that Catholics are smart for believing in salvation by faith and works, doesn’t it? I mean, we believe we are saved gratuitously by God’s grace…we are saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That qualifies us for being “judicially declared saved,” doesn’t it? And, once we’re judicially declared saved, we can believe in whatever we want, and we’re still saved, right? So, it makes sense to go ahead and believe in salvation by faith and works, because we’re already saved. And, if you’re wrong about salvation being by faith alone, then we’re covered there, too. In other words, your position has a whole bunch of holes in it.

Regarding your statement about “initial justification” essentially being “incomplete” in the Catholic view of things, you are not correct. Initial justification is not incomplete. There is no such thing as “incomplete” justification. One is either justified or he isn’t. One cannot be partially justified. One is either attached to Christ or he isn’t. One is either a member of the Body of Christ, or he isn’t. However, regarding your comment that salvation isn’t decided until after we die (or up until the moment of our death), you are correct. A person is free to accept or reject Christ up until the moment they die. A person is free to join or remove themselves from the Body of Christ up until the moment they die.

The problem here is, you’re trying to look at our beliefs through Protestant-tinted glasses. When a person is baptized (their “initial justification” to use your term), were they to die at that very moment – adult or child – they would go straight to Heaven. They have been sanctified…they have been justified…they have been saved. However, we believe a person can, after Baptism, separate themselves from Christ through sin (Romans 6:15-16 & Gal 5:2-4 as just two of the many examples in Scripture). We have sins of commission – stealing, murder, homosexuality, adultery (see 1 Cor 6:9 & Rev 21:8 for more examples) – and sins of omission – not feeding the hungry, not clothing the naked (Matt 25:31-46), not forgiving others of their sins (Matt 6:15), amongst others.

When one commits a mortal sin (sin unto death), he, in essence, mortally wounds his soul (1 Jn 5:16-17). The sin is deadly, or mortal, because it separates us from the Body of Christ. We cannot be saved if we die in a state of separation from Christ. This is one reason why our works are so important, because if we do not do certain works, as we see in Matt 25:31-46, we may indeed be separating ourselves from Christ. The works in and of themselves do not “save” us, rather they are part of the process of “abiding” in Christ (John 6:56; John 15:4-10; 1 Jn 3:24)…part of the process for making us holy (Heb 12:14)…part of the process of Christ being formed in us (Gal 4:19)…part of the process of denying ourselves and picking up our crosses daily (Lk 9:23)…part of the process of doing God’s will for our lives (Eph 2:10; Matt 7:21)…part of the process of working out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12-13). The works do indeed flow from our faith, but they also flow from our love. However, the works also help to increase our love and to increase our faith.

So, just as our faith, in and of itself does not save us, neither do our works, in and of themselves, save us. It is God’s free gift of His grace that saves us. But, both faith and works are necessary responses to God’s free gift of his grace in order for us to “abide” in Christ, which Scripture tells us is a necessary condition for salvation. If we lose our faith, or if we still have faith but do not do the works, we no longer abide in Christ and we are lost. Again, it is God’s grace, and His grace alone, by which we are saved. However, if we lose our faith, we can lose our salvation. If we refuse to do the works which God has prepared for us beforehand, we can lose our salvation. So, both faith and works are necessary responses to God’s free gift of salvation. You believe only one response is necessary to God’s grace…having faith. You believe that is the only work we need to do in order to be saved. Well, as Catholics, we believe that we need to do all that Jesus said we need to do in order to be saved. We have to do all the works that Jesus lays before us in Scripture. Faith and works are, in essence, how we open the gift and apply it to our lives.

You stated the following: “I believe that the overwhelming message of the Bible is still summed up in John 3:16-18….” First of all, why should what you “believe”…why should your interpretation of the Bible…your opinion of what the Bible says…impact my beliefs in any way, shape, or form? As I asked above in regard to Protestantism, I will now ask in regard to all of Christianity: Are you the final arbiter of biblical interpretation when it comes to Christian belief? By what authority do you claim your interpretation of any verse of Scripture is more valid or more “correct” than my interpretation?

Secondly, you just named 2 works that a person has to do which precede justification…one has to recognize their own hopelessly imperfect state, which is an act (work) of the intellect and of the will, and one has to repent, which is also an act (work) of the intellect and will. And, actually, there is a third work involved, that of “accepting” the “irreversible [according to you] gift of the imputed righteousness of Christ.” Accepting is a verb. An action. It is an act of the intellect and an act of the will to accept Christ. It is not a passive thing. It is something one has to “do.” Therefore, the act of believing itself, is a work (John 6:27-29). So, your position then becomes that you believe in salvation by faith plus 3 works.

If what we do plays no role whatsoever in our salvation, then why isn’t everyone saved? Jesus died for all men. All men’s sins were paid for by His death. He redeemed all by His death. So, why aren’t all men saved? Because those who are redeemed but not saved, didn’t “do” something that those who are redeemed and saved “did,” right? The saved folks did something that the unsaved folks didn’t do. There was an action, a work, that the saved folks did that the unsaved folks didn’t do.

Regarding your parenthetical comment about babies not being born in a state of innocence. You got that one correct. But, you believe that they cannot then be saved until they reach the age of reason. In other words, all babies who die go to Hell. You say you “hope in some special dispensation for them,” but you can’t really believe that, can you? Unless you want to be a hypocrite. Because, you believe only what is in the Bible. And, since the Bible does not mention a “special dispensation” for babies, then you cannot believe in it. You shouldn’t even hope for it, should you? And, if you hope for a “special dispensation” for babies, do you also hope for a special dispensation for Jews? For Muslims? For atheists? For Buddhists? For Catholics?

You believe that God has set up a system of salvation by which babies who die before they have any possibility of confessing faith in Christ automatically go to Hell. Would a just God do that? What about the severely mentally retarded who, throughout their entire lives, can have no understanding of God…of Christ…and cannot confess a belief in Christ? They, too, go to Hell under your system of belief. The thing is, you know that there is something inherently wrong in that belief, which is why you have this “hope” for a special dispensation.

You stated that you believe: “that there’s an unmistakable pattern that’s established by dozens of scriptures” regarding faith preceding good works and so forth. Well, when have I ever said that faith does not precede good works? Once again I’m afraid you’re wasting time arguing a point that I have never contended. Good works are always preceded by, and accompanied by, faith. Good works do indeed spring from one’s justification…one’s being united to the Body of Christ through Baptism. It is indeed divine power…God’s grace…that keeps the “true believer” to the end and empowers the good works. In other words, I basically agree with what you said here. Which, again, means you spent time arguing against that which I do not believe.

You stated: “Sixteen times in the Gospel of John, alone, Jesus names faith or believing as the key condition for being “one of His”, without ever mentioning finishing a process by good works.” Really? Let’s look at a few of those passages and get the full context, shall we. John 3:16-18 is followed fairly closely by John 3:20-21, “For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who DOES what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his DEEDS have been wrought in God.” Faith and works.

You cite John 5:24, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” And, as you mention, one must look at Scripture not just in selected fragments, but in its broader context, as well. So, let’s get some more context for this verse. First, in verse 36, Jesus speaks of the works that He is doing that the Father “has granted Me to accomplish.” Sounds a lot like Ephesians 2:10 and the works that God has prepared for us beforehand, that we “should” do them, doesn’t it? If Jesus had refused to do the works that God set before Him to accomplish, would anyone be saved? If we refuse to do the works that God has set before us, will we be saved?

Next, let’s go to James 1:22-25, “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves…But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets, but a doer that acts, he shall be BLESSED in his DOING.” Romans 2:13, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” Faith and works.

In John 6:26-29 it says to labor for “the food which endures to eternal life.” In John 6:51-59 Jesus says 6 times that if we “do” something…eat His flesh and drink His blood…we will have eternal life. Faith and works.

In addition to John 8:23-24 that you cite, there’s John 8:30, “As He spoke thus, many believed in Him.” Scripture says these folks “believed in Him.” So, they were saved, right? They were “judicially declared saved” at that point, right? But, in verses 31-32 it says, “Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in Him, ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make your free.” The clear implication being, that if they do not “continue” in His word, then that are not truly His disciples and they will not know the truth and they will not be set free. To “continue” in His word is something they would have to do…a work…an action or series of actions. And, if you believe they were saved by believing in Him, it is very clear that they can be unsaved by not continuing in His word. Once saved, always saved? Not here.

I could go on, but for the sake of keeping this response below 100 pages, I won’t. Suffice it to say, that I can find plenty of verses throughout the New Testament where works are mentioned in conjunction with faith and I can find plenty of verses where works are mentioned without even a mention of faith. Faith and works are both necessary responses to God’s grace. Faith alone does not suffice as a response to His grace. And, again, I am not saying that works precede faith or that they do not flow out of faith (and love), but, they are still necessary for one to continue to abide in Christ, and abiding in Christ is necessary for salvation.

You say that “good works are presented as an effect, not a contributing cause of salvation.” Well, that is simply your interpretation. Faith begets works. The Father begets the Son. So, by your logic, the Father is the cause of our salvation, but not the Son. The Son is merely an “effect.” Faith, in and of itself, is a work…it is something that we do. It is not something Jesus does for us. It is something that we do in cooperation with God’s grace…in cooperation with the saving grace merited for us by Christ on the cross. And, we can, at any time, stop cooperating with God’s grace…we can, at any time, stop cooperating with the saving grace of Christ.

You cannot separate faith from works…they are like the body and the spirit…as the Bible points out to us. If you separate the spirit (works) from the body (faith) what happens? You have physical death on the one hand, and spiritual death on the other hand. I did, by the way, notice that once again you did not touch my questions regarding James 2:26, nor James 2:24

Regarding John 6:37-40, that it is “The Father’s will and Jesus’ job to preserve those who come to committed belief in Jesus.”

You interpret that to mean once saved always saved. It’s the Father’s will, so it has to be so, right? Well, in 1 Tim 2:4 it says that God our Savior “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” So, since God desires it, then that must mean that all men are saved, right? By your method of interpretation, God wills it, so it must be so. Well then, if all men are saved, why are we even having this conversation? You keep coming up with interpretations of Scripture that put a lot more into the text than what is actually there. Nowhere do these verses say anything remotely like once saved, always saved.

Regarding your interpretations of John 8:33-36, 14:1-4, and 10:25-30, you get your interpretations by making these verses “trump” other verses of Scripture or by simply ignoring the very clear messages in other verses. And, you contradict yourself. For example, in one paragraph, you say that in John 14:1-4 it’s talking about once saved always saved, apparently, then, it is referring to Christians. But, in the very next paragraph, when discussing John 15 – the branches being cut off the vine – you say that He is talking about all Israel, not about Christians. Do you see how you have to twist the Scriptures to get them to say what you want them to say? Iif Jesus is talking about all Israel in John 15, then He must be talking about all Israel in John 14, right? I mean, it’s all the same speech. He says “you” in chapter 14 and chapter 15. Does “you” mean Christians in chapter 14, but all of a sudden acquires a new meaning – all of Israel – in chapter 15? Again, a pretty ridiculous result of your interpretations of Scripture.

And, when it comes to John 10:25-30 and the verse about “no one” being able to “snatch” someone out of Jesus’ hand, aren’t you being a bit “hyper-literal” here? Besides, I believe no one can snatch anyone out of Jesus’ hand. Doesn’t “snatch” imply being taken against one’s will? However, nowhere does it say anything about Jesus holding onto someone against their will, does it? Nowhere does it say anything about Jesus holding onto you if you wish to willingly become a slave of sin. If someone says, “Jesus, I reject you, I no longer believe in you,” whether in word or in deed, will Jesus refuse to let them go? Will He impose His will over their will? Nowhere does this passage imply such a thing.

Look at the parable of the Prodigal Son. Did the father (the Father) keep his son from leaving? No. Could he have prevented him from cashing in his inheritance and leaving? Absolutely. Did he? Absolutely not. Was this son actually a son of the father? Absolutely. In other words, in your theology, this is a “saved” Christian we’re talking about here. When the son left the father’s house, was he still his son? Absolutely. Was he still saved? Absolutely not. See what the father says AFTER the son repents and returns to his father’s house, Luke 15:24: “…for this my son was DEAD, and is alive AGAIN; he was LOST, and is now FOUND.” It was his son alright, but it was his dead son. When a Christian turns his back on the Father, which he can do in a number of ways, he commits a mortal sin. He dies, spiritually. He is no longer saved. When he repents of his sins, when he comes back to the Father to seek His mercy, he is alive AGAIN. Notice, it didn’t have the father saying that his son is STILL alive, the father says that he was DEAD and is alive AGAIN. The father says his son was LOST. If someone is described as being LOST, would you say that means they’re saved? You might, but that would be a pretty silly thing to say. Lost means lost. Of course, you can claim that I’m being “hyper-literal” here, as you do everywhere else the Scriptures say exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, but that would be your only recourse.

Your interpretation of John 15:1-6 is truly bizarre. You say that on one level it represents a warning to “ethnic Israel” about being “cut off” from the vine…in other words, a warning about not being saved. But, on another level, it is merely a “practical warning” to the Apostles about not straying from Jesus if they “hope to be fruitful.” So, to some people it is indeed a threat about losing their salvation, but to others it only means, “Hey, don’t stray from me or you won’t be fruitful.” But, doesn’t that make this second definition run contrary to so many of the things you’ve been saying before? I thought you couldn’t stray from Jesus if you’re truly a Christian – no one can snatch you out of Jesus’ hand, right? So, if you can’t be snatched out of Jesus’ hand, how can you stray from Him? Which is it? Can you be snatched from His hand or can’t you? Plus, why would Jesus warn them about not bearing fruit, if there is no situation for a “true believer” where they can’t bear fruit? Remember, works flow from a saving faith, right? The Apostles all had a saving faith didn’t they? So, why would Jesus warn them about straying from Him? You’re like someone who is taking pieces of different puzzles and trying to fit them together. It doesn’t work that way.

Basically you’re saying that the Bible has different meanings depending on who’s reading it. If a Jew is reading it, then a passage means one thing. But, if a Christian is reading it, then a passage means another thing. What if a Muslim is reading it? What does John 15:1-6 say to Muslims? What does it say to Catholics? To Buddhists?

You go on to say that “if the branches that are to be cut off and burned are genuine New Testament believers, then we have to ask if Jesus chose poorly; it does say He chose them. Does Jesus just choose a random sample and let them thrash it out? Here you don’t even attempt to use Scripture for your argument. Jesus chose them, so if they turn away from Him then He must have chosen poorly. Who says so? Does the Bible say so. No! Raymond Woodward says so. Should I go by what the Bible says, or by what Raymond Woodward says? Doesn’t Jesus want all men to be saved? Yet, not all men are saved. He must have chosen poorly, because not all the ones He wanted saved were saved. Or, are you saying that even though He wants all men to be saved, He doesn’t “choose” all men to be saved? In other words, Jesus literally condemns men to Hell without them having any choice in the matter, even though He actually wants all of them to be saved. That’s nuts! Did Jesus choose His Apostles poorly? After all, one betrayed Him, one denied Him, and 9 of the other ten abandoned Him. Pretty poor choices, weren’t they?

You then mention Hebrews 6. Hebrews 6:1-9 which, when one reads it without any predetermined agenda, as your own example clearly shows, does indeed preclude any notion of once saved always saved. You state that you used to use these verses to show to Baptists that once saved always saved cannot be true. Now, you have a different interpretation of these verses. How do you know this current interpretation is a correct interpretation? How am I to believe that your current interpretation is a correct interpretation? After all, you readily admit that your interpretation of these verses has changed? Did you not believe your former interpretation to be correct? Yet, you changed it. Now, you tell me your current interpretation is correct. Again, why should I believe you? How do I know that your interpretation of this passage will not change yet again in the future? Frankly, I find your argument that this is “reductio ad absurdum” to be ad absurdum.

“Absolutely YES there are good works to be done, but the sweet part is that Jesus Himself empowers and directs the work (so He gets the glory)…”. I agree, and I have pretty much said the same thing. But, as members of His body, do we share in His glory or not. If the Head receives glory, does the Body also receive glory? Or, do you separate the Head from the Body? If the Head merits, does not the Body also merit? Or, do you separate the Head from the Body? Do you separate the Bridegroom from the Bride? Have the two become one, or are they still two? Does the Bridegroom take all the glory for Himself, or does He willingly share it with His Bride?

“Consider Noah’s Ark.” Yes, let’s consider Noah’s ark. It was built according to God’s plan, in His timing, from materials He provided and so on. But, if Noah, who believed in God, had not lifted a single hammer, would he have been saved from the flood? If Noah had not cooperated with God, would he and his family have been saved from the flood? Yes or no? Faith and works.

Regarding your adopted son…I think what you did was a wonderful thing, provided him with a home filled with love. But, I go back to the Prodigal Son, when he left his father’s house and fell into sin, he was indeed his father’s son, but he was his father’s “DEAD” son. He was his father’s “LOST” son. He was not still his father’s “saved” son. His was not still his father’s “son in good standing.” You don’t disown your son, as God does not disown us. But, as the Prodigal Son teaches us, God does not get in the way if we choose to leave His house and follow a path that leads to death. Will you impose yor will on your son, no matter what?

You stated: “IF I follow your doctrine, John, I think your concept of God is far too small and far too eager to condemn. I believe He wants you to work with Him because He relishes the time with you in ways that we cannot conceive, much less describe. I just don’t believe that Jesus died a hideous death so He could watch you walk a tight-rope from your initial justification to the end of a salvation process. If I truly love my toddler son, would I have left it to him to make his way across a busy highway? How much more so would our Perfect Heavenly Father watch out for His children?”

No, you don’t let your toddler son cross a busy highway. But, do you let your teenage son? Do you let your adult son? And, if your 25-yr. old son comes to you one day and says, “Dad, I reject you and all that you stand for and I want nothing more to do with you,” do you let him go or do you tie him up and keep him in the basement for the rest of his life? Your analogies are not applicable to the situation we’re talking about. God is not eager to condemn. However, He also is not eager to impose His will on us. If we wish to separate ourselves from Him, he allows us to do so. He knows we shouldn’t, and He is not happy about it, but He lets us do it.

Your concept of salvation is easy. I just believe in God and “boom!” my ticket to Heaven is punched. What about the verse that says the road to life is narrow and the way is “hard,” (Matt 7:14) while the road to destruction is wide and easy to follow? Tell me what is so difficult about making a profession of faith in Jesus Christ one time? My concept of salvation is not so easy. It is something we have to constantly guard and protect because Satan is going about seeking someone to devour (1 Ptr 5:8). Well, is Satan seeking to devour those who are already his? That makes no sense. So, who is Satan seeking to devour? Those who are not already his. Those who belong to Christ. He is waiting for us to open the door or even the window to him. He is constantly trying to tempt us to sin, of our own free will, because indeed he cannot snatch us from the hand of Christ against our will. But, he can accompany as we willingly walk away from Christ through sin.

Regarding your comments on Baptism, why is it that the Bible can come “perilously close” [according to you] to saying we are saved by “faith alone,” in other words, it doesn’t actually say it, but when the Bible says “baptism saves you,” you mention how it only says that once? By the way, the rest of the verse does not contradict the first half of the verse, despite your interpretation to the contrary. This is not about the physical act of “getting wet.” Baptism, the pouring of water is the visible sign of an invisible reality. Through baptism, God, by His grace, removes our sins, joins us to the Body of Christ, gives to us the Holy Spirit, and saves us (Ezek 36:25-27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27, Col 2:11-12, 1 Ptr 3:20-21, John 3:3-5, Mark 16:16, Titus 3:5). What happens in all 4 accounts of Jesus’ Baptism? Water is poured on Him and then the Holy Spirit comes upon Him. Same thing for us, except that we need Baptism and He didn’t.

You mention that Baptism can refer to the “physical act (as a public declaration of commitment to Christ).” Unfortunately, the Bible nowhere says such a thing. Please give me one verse that states Baptism is merely a “public declaration of one’s commitment to Christ”? Then, you go on to say that it “more commonly” refers to one “completely soaking oneself with the essence of God.” Really?! Where does it say THAT?! With all due respect, Raymond, but that is pretty ridiculous. That statement is nowhere supported by Scripture nor is it supported by history. Give me one Scripture verse that states such a thing.

RW: “And as described above, Noah and friends were saved “through” the flood – despite the flood, not by it.” In this interpretation of 1 Ptr 3:20-21, you have verse 21 contradicting verse 20. Your interpretation of verse 20 is that they were saved despite the water. But, doesn’t verse 21 mean we are saved by baptism, no matter how you define baptism? To be consistent, if verse 20 means they were saved “despite the flood,” then shouldn’t verse 21 mean that we are saved “despite baptism?” After all, it says that baptism corresponds to this.” Then doesn’t that mean we are saved “despite Baptism?” If being saved through water in verse 20 means they were saved in spite of the water, so verse 21 must mean that they are saved in spite of Baptism…in spite of “soaking oneself in Christ.” Once again, your interpretations lead to positions that are not well thought out, contradictory, and opposed to the clear reading of Scripture.

You claim that, in several instances, I am being “hyper-literal.” As the church lady used to say, “How conveeeeenient.” Everywhere the Bible says exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, you can just claim we are being “hyper-literal.” And, even though Scripture says in 1 Cor 10:1-2 that “…all were baptized into Moses…,” you claim that never actually happened! That is absolutely unbelievable to me. You claim to go by the Scriptures alone, but when Scripture tells you something happened, you say, “No, it didn’t.” In Acts 20:35, Paul says that Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Well, would you please tell me which Gospel Jesus said that in? I guess, if you can’t find it in the Gospels, that means Jesus didn’t really say that, right?

Regarding Eph 2:8-10, I don’t have to adapt my doctrine. It says exactly what I believe. You have to adapt Scripture verse after Scripture verse to your doctrine. You have to twist a little bit here, a lot there, to get the Scriptures to say what it is you want them to say. I have shown over and over again where your interpretations fall flat on their faces and result in contradictory, confusing, and outright absurd meanings.

Regarding Romans 3:10-23, at one point you say it is an absolute qualifier, now you say it is an absolute qualifier in regard to “pre-regenerate” souls. You state that Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous at two levels, but not at the level of “true perfect righteousness.” Where does it say that in the Bible? So, righteous means one thing in one place, and another thing in another place?

RW: “So that brings us to Galations 3…If there’s no principle that can be applied beyond the first century, why was it cannonized?”

Since when do you get to determine what is and is not an appropriate reason for canonization? Why was Philemon canonized? Yes, there are principles from Gal 3 that can be applied across the centuries. The same principles as in the first century – one does not have to follow the Mosaic law in order to be a Christian. There are folks out there, calling themselves Messianic Jews, who quite often are teaching the contrary. Do you accuse Paul of being a hyper-literalist when he says “the law” came into being 430 years after Abraham? You do realize that sometimes the Bible actually means what it says, don’t you? Did Peter actually deny Jesus, or is that just a hyper-literal interpretation of how we need to make sure we get to bed and get enough sleep before the cock crows so that we don’t do something stupid for lack of sleep?

Isaiah 64 is not about recalcitrant Jews? It’s a a reference to “humankind viewed across the span of history?” Very well. It still makes a clear distinction between the works of those who are righteous and the works of those who were righteous but then turn from their righteousness. Works are not filthy rags when done by the righteous, but works done by the righteous become filthy rags once the righteous turn from their righteousness to doing what is evil. Again, read Ezek 18 and Ezek 33. These chapters blow your belief in once saved always saved right out of the water. But, of course, you must claim that I am being “hyper-literal” here, right?

And, you didn’t even mention how you completely destroyed the meaning of Deut 9:4-6. So, I stand by what I said in the last email regarding Isaiah 64 and Deut 9 and Ezek 18 and 33. You did not address my arguments. Read the words in the Bible. Stop making the Bible fit you’re preconceived notions.

“Regarding my citation of James…” Regarding your citation of James, once again you really didn’t address my argument. Go back and read what I said. I understood exactly what you were saying. Please, replace the word “faith” everywhere it appears in James 2 with your interpretation of what James means when he says, “faith,” in 2:14. It makes a mockery of the passage. And, please, again, give me your interpretation of James 2:24 and James 2:26. Does James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone,” actually mean, “You see that a man is saved by faith alone and his works will show that he has a saving faith?” And, make sure to give me your interpretation of James 2:26 as well. Faith is compared to the body, works to the spirit. Body and soul are both necessary for life, so that must mean that faith alone is necessary for life, right?

Regarding your accusation that I’m being “hyper-literal” all over the place, again, I ask you to tell me by what authority you declare that? You have stated quite clearly, that you are someone whose interpretations of Scripture change…thus proving yourself to be an untrustworthy guide when it comes to the Bible. So, now, you state I’m being hyper-literal. How do you know? Are you infallible in your interpretations of the Bible? Obviously not, since you admit your interpretations have changed in the past. Or, do you claim that you have become infallible since the last time your interpretations changed? How can you teach others, not knowing if your interpretation of this or that verse will change tomorrow – meaning you would have led others astray with your previous teachings?

In James 2, you oppose faith to works. In my interpretation, they complement one another. Abraham…faith and works. Rahab…faith and works. Body and soul, not just the body.

RW: “YES, YES, YES, there is great Biblical demand for good works from those who are saved, but not in order to finish a “process” that was left incomplete by Jesus.”

If Jesus did all there was to do, and there is nothing left for us to do, then why aren’t all men saved? And, why does Paul say in Col 1:24 that he makes up in “his flesh” what is “lacking” in the sufferings of Christ. What is “lacking” in the sufferings of Christ?

RW: “Sure we have to take up our cross daily and follow, put our hands to His plow and not turn back, but that’s because we’ve declared Him to be Lord and Master, we need Him for daily strength, wisdom, direction, courage, all that. Of course there will be chastisement in this life and accounting for deeds of this life at the Bema Seat of Judgement. But where, in any of that, is it expressed or implied that Jesus’s blood didn’t quite finish the “process”?

Again, you argue against that which I do not argue for. Nowhere, in anything I have ever said, do I believe that Jesus didn’t finish the process. However, again, we have to cooperate with Christ. We have to freely give our will over to Him. We have to freely commit ourselves to Him. And, if there comes a point where we decide that we would rather freely follow sin than Christ, He lets us go. Why else do all the epistles written to Christians warn time and time and time and time again about the consequences of sin…if sin has no consequence for the Christian?

RW: “Finally, your questions:

1) Can we be saved if we walk against God’s will and do not walk… Theoretically, yes, but not likely, and certainly NO if we fail at the “work” of bowing our knees to the lordship if Jesus Christ. Let’s face it, Peter failed, Paul did, King David did, just go down the list of those who failed at some point to walk correctly. Of all the disciples, only John even showed up at Golgotha; did they all walk in His ways all the time? Obviously not.”

John: This is an answer that is in direct opposition to Scripture. Matt 7:21 says that it is those who do the will of the Father who will enter Heaven. Period. Christ says we must do the will of the Father in order to enter Heaven, Raymond Woodward says that “theoretically,” we don’t have to. You do not understand, at all, about the teaching of Scripture and the Church for the need for forgiveness over and over again, precisely because we fail. Under your system of theology, we’re forgiven once, and that’s it. No need to repent again. No need to feel sorrow for our sins again. No need to amend our ways. No need for continual conversion. It’s all been taken care of.

RW: ”2) Do we need to eat the flesh of the Son and drink His blood… If you’re talking about ‘transubstantiation’ (did I spell that right?), NO! You have a LONG way to go to demonstrate from the Bible where wine and bread literally turn into His literal flesh and blood. Yes, He literally talked in those terms, but that doesn’t mean He was talking about literal meat and blood. That’s the domain of hyper-literalism. He also told his disciples to pluck out their eyes & cut off their hands if they caused sin and we don’t find many one-eyed paraplegic disciples in The Bible. But if you’re talking in the obvious figurative sense, the answer is absolutely YES. There is NO cure for our sin nature but to fully ingest the essence of Christ, to ingest and digest His precious (figurative) body and blood until they are part of us in body, soul, and spirit.”

John: If the figurative sense is so “obvious,” then why did so many of His disciples, who were with Him day in and day out, who knew Him very well, walk away from Him? Why was it such a hard teaching if it was so obviously figurative? No, the burden of proof is on you to give me a reason to believe that Jesus was speaking figuratively when everyone who heard Him on that day took Him literally.

In John 6:51, Jesus says that the bread which He will give us to eat is His flesh which He will give for the life of the world. Did He give us His literal flesh or His figurative flesh for the life of the world? Your interpretation leads to Him giving us His figurative flesh for the life of the world. By the way, what does it mean to “ingest and digest His precious (figurative) body and blood until they are part of us in body, soul, and spirit?” How does one do that?

RW: ”3) If a man does not care for his family, does that affect his salvation? As to final salvation or damnation, no. It will most certainly be called to account before The Throne and probably reap chastisement in this life. That’s because The Bible doesn’t say that such a man is an infidel, it says he’s worse than an infidel, which I guess we both take to be an unregenerate clod. The Bible warns that much will be expected from those who have received much, so a believer is certainly held to a higher standard than some basic heathen. As to disowning the faith, I think I addressed that above; I will always be my dad’s son, whether I like it or not. You twisted my words badly on this one.”

John: Again, your answer contradicts Scripture. You say that to be worse than an infidel (one who is a non-believer and bound for Hell) it simply means that he is an “unregenerate clod” but he is apparently still saved? That’s pretty ridiculous! How can you be worse than an unsaved person, yet still be saved? And, how can he be an unregenerate clod and yet have a “saving faith?” And don’t say Paul isn’t talking about Christians, because he clearly states that by not caring for your family you have “renounced the faith.” You can’t renounce that which you do not have.

RW: ”4) In Romans 2:6-10 it states that God will give or deny eternal life to evey man according to his works…You really twisted my words on this one from my previous reply, so let’s try again. And actually, my answer is very much in line with scripture. First, check the context of Romans 2, it’s summed up in V.29 “…for he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart…” Your whole premise goes screaming out the window at that point, because Paul sums it by saying that the part that counts is in the heart, not the external do’s and don’ts. There are several other scriptures that say the same thing, but this is getting way too long. To answer anyway, if we choose to live under the law, then we must keep it perfectly or we’re toast, absolutely true, because we have thereby rejected the sacrifice of Christ which is the ultimate mistake — we’ve been legalized unto eternal hell. So, absolutely YES, that is literally true if we choose to live under some law, rather than His grace.”

John: If you would just answer with a yes or a no, I couldn’t twist your words. You still don’t answer the question. The verse says that God will give “eternal life” to those who do good works. I could do what you do and take this verse and use it to trump your verses, but one verse of Scripture doesn’t trump another verse. Paul is emphasizing the important role of good works in salvation here, while he emphasizes the important role of faith in other places. I don’t have to add anything or delete anything to get it to say what I want it to say. It says what it says, and I believe it.

RW: ”5) Do we automatically walk in these good works as you (Raymond) allegedly believes? Huh? John, that’s nutty. I never said anything of the sort. I said that by virtue of our relationship with Christ, there will be good works, though not flawlessly so. I’ve addressed that repeatedly in several emails, and repeatedly here.”

John: Well, now you’ve gotten yourself into a pickle. There will be good works by virtue of our relationship with Christ, though not “flawlessly so.” Well then, if good works show forth our saving faith, what level of flawlessness do we have to reach to be sure our good works are showing forth our saving faith? Do we have to have 1% flawlessness? 5% flawlessness? 10% flawlessness? At what percentage of flawlessness can we be sure that we have a saving faith and not just an intellectual non-saving faith? How many works do we have to do to be sure that our faith is indeed a saving faith?

RW: ”6) Do we need to labor for the food wich endures to eternal life? Well of course we do. Once again, John, you really put the wrong words in my mouth, you sed I sed NO! Jesus told us to do so. I also need to take One-a-Day vitamins everyday but sometimes I fail to do so. In so failing, I don’t live as well as I should, might eventually become sick and die too young, but I don’t drop dead on the spot. I think you’re asking if we need to earn eternal life at some level, and I’ve far more than covered that.”

John: Jesus tells us we need to labor for the food which endures to eternal life. You agree that He says that. So, if we don’t labor (work) for that food, will we have eternal life? Obviously, the scriptural answer is no. If we can get it without laboring for it, then why tell us to labor for it? Again, your interpretation contradicts the clear meaning of Scripture.

RW: ”7) Do we need to keep the commanments in order to have eternal life? As above, you put entirely the wrong words in my mouth, you’re 0-for-3 on that. Which commandments? The 10 Commandments? The Mosaic Law? The Great Commission? Roman Catholic Commandments? Southern Baptist do’s & don’ts? Regardless, here’s the answer: it’s precisely the same concept and answer as #4 above.”

John: To answer your question, how about the Commandments Jesus was talking about? He mentions four or five of the Ten Commandments, so we can be pretty sure that’s what He’s talking about here. Again, you fail to answer. Do we have to keep the commandments, whichever commandments Jesus was referring to, in order to have eternal life? Yes or no?

RW: ”8) Do we need love in order to be saved? You’re now 0-for-4 at answering for me. Of course we need love to be saved. We need God’s love, we need to love God, we must love Jesus to stay near Him. Do we have to “love” all our neighbors as ourselves? Only if we choose to live under the law. It’s good if we can, but not many do.”

John: If we need love in order to be saved, then we are not saved by faith “alone,” are we? Unless, you claim that love and faith are one and the same thing. You say we do not have to love our neighbors as ourselves in order to be saved, which means we can break one of the two great commandments given to us by our Lord and still be saved. You need to read 1 John 2, which tends to disagree with you.

RW: “Now finally, I have just three questions for you:

1) Did Jesus’ sacrifice make full atonement for your sins, once and for all? Yes or No, simple question.”

John: Yes. Jesus’ sacrifice made full atonement for all men’s sins, didn’t it? Yes or no? If so, how come not all men are saved?

RW: “2) If yes, then just what are you working for now?”

John: I am working, by God’s grace, to fulfill God’s will for my life, and to bear good fruit, so that I can abide in Him and not be cut off and thrown into the fire and burned. Just as Scripture tells me I need to do.

RW: ”3) If no, then how do you know when you’ve done enough good works to make up for the inadequacy of Jesus’ atonement?”

John: How do you know when you’ve done enough good works to be sure that you have shown forth a saving faith, rather than just a non-saving intellectual faith?

RW: ”John, I have to confess that at one point, I really wished I’d never seen your newsletter, never sent you an email, none of that. But that’s changed. I don’t know that you and I will ever fully agree on all this, but I do genuinely thank you for your time, especially knowing that I can be a too assertive, much too wordy, and too quick to judge. I still have a lot of spiritual growing to do. Anyhow, thanks for sharing your mind, your time, and your cyber-space with someone who you could just as easily have ignored. God bless.”

RW

John: Raymond, I have to confess that at more than one point, I really wished you had never seen my newsletter. But, such is life. And I must say that I appreciate the humility you have shown and the manner in which you have responded to these emails.

Just so you know, I do what I do because I believe in the saving atonement of Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. And, I believe that those who do not have the fullness of the Truth, have a harder time abiding in Christ than those who do have the fullness of the Truth. I ask you to please pray about your interpretations of Scripture. Are they fallible or infallible? If they are fallible, then how can you truly know that what you believe and what you are trying to get me to believe is the truth, and not the doctrine of demons? As a Catholic, with the infallible authority of the Church to lean upon, I have much more assurance of what is and is not truth, than you can ever have by relying upon your own, fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretations of the Bible. “Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

In Conclusion

If you see any grammatical or spelling errors or such on my part, please let me know. I did not have the time to properly go through this and edit.

Hope ya’ll have a great week! God bless!

How to be added to, or removed from, the list

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.

$RemovalHTML$

Share this newsletter on: