A Letter to a Baptist Pastor

I have been remiss in my attention to this blog for a while. Work, family, and my boys seemingly constant involvement in sports have kept me busy and not allowed me to devote the time I had wished to writing. For that, I apologize.

I usually spend my hour-long train ride to work each day listening to the various podcasts I subscribe to. My commute is a blessing in this regard, for it affords me the time that I simply don't have at home. "Craig Time" as my wife calls it. One of the podcasts to which I have subscribed for a while is from Fairfax Baptist Temple in Fairfax, Virginia; and consists of the sermons of their Pastor, Dr. Troy Calvert. In the time I have been listening to his podcast, I have found Pastor Calvert to be a good and sincere leader of his flock and as with other Protestant ministers I've listened to, I find that a great deal of what he teaches is in utter agreement with Catholic teaching. However, the sermon I listened to on Friday, December 23rd was decidedly NOT compatible with it. I felt the need to write Pastor Calvert on the subject of that sermon, eternal assurance of salvation.

UPDATE: Pastor Calvert has, true to his word, responded to my letter and I am currently working on a response. I will post them both when my response is complete.

_______________________________

Pastor Calvert,

I subscribe to FBT's Podcast on iTunes and have for a while. I was listening to your December 6th sermon entitled “Kept in His Ever Secure Hand” last Friday morning on the way to work and I felt compelled to write you.

To be upfront and honest with you, I am a Catholic and a convert at that. Regarding my salvation, I believe, as the Bible says, that I am already saved (Romans 8:24, Ephesians 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15, Philippians 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Romans 5:9–10, 1 Corinthians 3:12–15). Like the Apostle Paul, I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Romans 5:2, 2 Timothy 2:11–13).

I believe that the Bible teaches that salvation goes beyond the standard question that I hear often posed in your sermons: "Are you saved?" On your website in Section J of your Declaration of Faith, you define your beliefs on Salvation as:

'We believe that salvation is of the Lord (Philippians 1:6) on the merit of the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:24, 26). Salvation is a free gift (Ephesians 2:8, 9; Romans 6:23) which excludes any possible merit on the basis of works (Ephesians 2:8, 9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). We believe that the two essential doctrines that must be present in every lost person that wants to be saved are repentance (Acts 2:38) and faith (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9, 10). We also believe that once a person has been saved that there is no chance of his ever going to hell and that he is eternally secure in Christ (John 3:16, 36; I John 5:11-13).'

I have found that scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to Heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to Hell; for they have chosen it and God will respect that choice.

Certainly, Christ died on the cross once for all and has entered into the holy place in Heaven to appear before God on our behalf. Christ has abundantly provided for our salvation, but that does not mean that there is no process by which this is applied to us as individuals. Obviously, there is, or we would have been saved and justified from all eternity, with no need to repent or have faith or anything else. We would have been born "saved," with no need to be born again. Since we were not, since it is necessary for those who hear the gospel to repent and embrace it, there is a time at which we come to be reconciled to God. And if so, then we, like Adam and Eve, can become un-reconciled with God and, like the prodigal son, need to come back and be reconciled again with God, after having left his family. In a "Once Saved, Always Saved" theology, the parable of the Prodigal Son makes no sense.

Some contend that the sinner did nothing to merit God’s grace and likewise he can do nothing to demerit grace. Unless I am misunderstanding, this is not your contention. You seem to hold that once a claim of "acceptance of Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" is made you are saved (if you truly made said acceptance in your heart), but that if you subsequently fall back into habitual serious sin, you were NEVER saved. Am I correct in this conclusion?

Regarding the issue of whether Christians can have an assurance that they are "eternally secure" in their salvation, consider this warning the Apostle Paul gave: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Romans 11:22; see also Hebrews 10:26–29, 2 Peter 2:20–21).

Related to the issue of whether one can lose one’s salvation is the question of whether one can know with complete certainty that one is in a state of salvation. Even if one could not lose one’s salvation, one still might not be sure whether one ever had salvation. Similarly, even if one could be sure that one is now in a state of salvation, one might be able to fall from grace in the future. The "knowability" of salvation is a different question than the "loseability" of salvation. You called upon 1 John 5:13 as proof of eternal security: ‘These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.’" Places where Scripture speaks of our ability to know that we are abiding in grace are important and must be taken seriously. But they do not promise that we will be protected from self-deception on this matter. You have to admit that there is such a thing as a false assurance. Didn't Jesus declare: ‘Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of Heaven’ (Matthew 7:21)?"

In my discussions with some Fundamentalist Christians they have tended to portray Catholics as if they must every moment be in terror of losing their salvation since Catholics recognize that it is possible to lose salvation through mortal sin. They then hold out the idea that, rather than living every moment in terror, they can have a calm, assured knowledge that they will, in fact, be saved, and that nothing will ever be able to change this fact. But this portrayal is in error. Catholics do not live lives of mortal terror concerning salvation. It is true we believe that salvation can be lost through mortal sin (1 John 5:16-17 "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."), but such sins are by nature grave ones, and not the kind that a person living the Christian life is going to slip into committing on the spur of the moment, without deliberate thought and consent. Neither does the Catholic Church teach that one cannot have an assurance of salvation. This is true both of present and future salvation.

One can be confident of one’s present salvation. This is one of the chief reasons why God gave us the sacraments—to provide visible assurances that he is invisibly providing us with his grace. And one can be confident that one has not thrown away that grace by simply examining one’s life and seeing whether one has committed mortal sin. Indeed, the tests that John sets forth in his first epistle to help us know whether we are abiding in grace are, in essence, tests of whether we are dwelling in grave sin. For example, "By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother" (1 John 3:10), "If any one says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20), "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).

Likewise, by looking at the course of one’s life in grace and the resolution of one’s heart to keep following God, one can also have an assurance of future salvation. It is this Paul speaks of when he writes to the Philippians and says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6). This is not a promise for all Christians, or even necessarily all in the church at Philippi, but it is a confidence that the Philippian Christians in general would make it. The basis of this is their spiritual performance to date, and Paul feels a need to explain to them that there is a basis for his confidence in them. Thus he says, immediately, "It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel" (1:7). The fact that the Philippians performed spiritually by assisting Paul in his imprisonment and ministry showed that their hearts were with God and that it could be expected that they, at least in general, would persevere and remain with God.

There are many saintly men and women who have long lived the Christian life and whose characters are marked with profound spiritual joy and peace. Such individuals can look forward with confidence to their reception in Heaven.

Such an individual was Paul, writing at the end of his life, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day" (2 Timothy 4:7-8). But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Greek., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Corinthians 4:4). Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Corinthians 9:27). Of course, for a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God’s grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly sure either of his own present state or of his future course.

The same is true of us. We can, if our lives display a pattern of perseverance and spiritual fruit, have not only a confidence in our present state of grace but also of our future perseverance with God. Yet we cannot have an infallible certitude of our own salvation, as many Protestants will admit. There is the possibility of self-deception (cf. Matthew 7:22-23). As Jeremiah expressed it, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture’s positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.

For example, Philippians 2:12 says, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." This is not the language of self-confident eternal assurance. Our salvation is something that remains to be worked out with the grace of God.

In the Love of Christ,

Craig Pryor

Standing for Justice

by Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson
from the January 2012 issue of Columbia Magazine

Because it conflicts with the natural moral law,
Roe v. Wade can never be regarded as "settled"

THIS MONTH we observe nearly four decades of pro-life activity in response to the infamous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. I am proud that the commitment of the Knights of Columbus in building a culture of life has grown stronger each year.

Some say that Roe v. Wade should be accepted as "settled law" and that attempts to restrict or overturn it should end. This argument has appeal because there should be clarity and certainty in our laws. But it falls short because there is a principle more important than certainty in our legal system - justice.

Although there are many problems with the legal reasoning in the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade, the most fundamental is that the court's decision rests upon a falsehood, which is expressed in Justice Blackmun's statement, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."

Whatever Blackmun may have believed in 1973, it is simply untrue in 2012 to say that abortion does not take the life of an unborn human being. Because of this reality, abortion will never be settled law in the United States and must someday be overturned.

As I wrote in my first book, A Civilization of Love, our situation is similar to that faced by the civil rights movement after the Supreme Court ruled in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson that "separate but equal" laws were constitutional. That decision enshrined the hateful system of de jure segregation throughout much of the United States and took 58 years to overturn.

The Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was based upon an untruth - the court rejected the obvious fact that the legally enforced separation of the two races "stamped" African-Americans "with a badge of inferiority." The court went on to say that if African-Americans thought "separate but equal" laws were demeaning and unfair, it was only because they chose "to put that construction on" such laws.

In his dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan contended that the court's view was pure fiction and that people knew it to be so.

The same must be said of Roe v. Wade. If we remain determined and committed, it too will one day be brushed into the dustbin of history.

Roe v. Wade will also on day be swept away for another reason: As I showed in my latest book, Beyond a House Divided, the decision has failed to gain the support of the American people after nearly four decades. Most Americans want legal restrictions on abortion that go far beyond what is permitted by the court's ruling.

This presents another lesson that can be learned from the civil rights movement. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. never hesitated to remind the people of the United States of their Judeo-Christian values. In his famous 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail, he even relied upon Catholic natural law tradition. King wrote: "One may well ask, 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?' The answer is found in the fact that there are just and there are unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that 'An unjust law is no law at all.'"

He continued, "Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law."

A law "that is out of harmony with the moral law" can never be regarded as "settled" as long as there are men of conscience, men of determination and men who understand that our nation will be judged by the respect we give to every person - even to "the least among us."

Vivat Jesus!

From the "Why Can't We All Just Get Along" File

One of the things I enjoy most as a Christian is sharing my faith. Engaging in discussions with people who's theological bents range from raging atheists to agnostic to that of varying other Protestant traditions. I enjoy hearing their perspective and giving them mine. We're called as disciples of Christ to do it. I also enjoy the opportunity to learn and the exchange of ideas, but my primary goal is to plant a seed, to make them think, to get them to try on a different set of "theological glasses", if you will.

I endeavor to use as my guide in these conversations, 1 Peter 3:15. I cannot lie, sometimes I fall short of that goal. Sometimes frustration grips me. I would ask for your prayers in that. The thing that frustrates me the most is something called the Straw Man fallacy. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position (i.e., what the Church actually teaches) and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. I find this particular tactic most egregiously utilized when I am in discussion with or reading something by a Fundamentalist Christian.

I recently found a web page that caught my attention as it represented itself as comparing and contrasting Church services in different Christian traditions. However, it soon got off track and ended up in Strawmanville. 

An example:

"The Roman Catholic Church emphasizes the "Mass", (an act viewed by Catholics as re-sacrificing the actual body and blood of Christ through Communion." 

I get this a lot. It usually comes in the form of a question, "Why are you re-sacrificing Christ when the Bible says His sacrifice was once for all?" The answer: Catholics don't view the Mass as a re-sacrifice of Christ. The irony is, as it is with all of these points, that simply picking up a Catechism would clear up any misconception. Paragraphs 1362-1367 of the CCC say, "1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial. 1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.¹⁸² In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them. 1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.¹⁸³ "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."¹⁸⁴ 1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."¹⁸⁵ In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."¹⁸⁶ 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.¹⁸⁷ 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."^188" Emphasis Added. I have left the scriptural footnotes intact.

We are not re-sacrificing Him. His once and for all sacrifice is being re-presented. Now we can discuss that, but lets be clear about what the Church actually teaches. We don't believe we are re-sacrificing Christ.

Another example:

"Catholics believe in the practice of worshiping icons in the Church."

Really? I personally have never met a Catholic who actually worships an icon? Neither have I met a Catholic who worships Mary or any of the Saints. Catholics would consider that idolatry. Statements like this smack of an utter ignorance of the history of the Church. It's like saying that having a picture of your wife in your wallet constitutes "wife worship". God forbade the worship of idols. Not the use of statues or artwork. If He did how do you explain Solomon's Temple?

And a Third:

"The Roman Catholic Church teaches salvation by works"  

As Catholics, we believe the grace of Jesus Christ saves us. We can do nothing outside of God's grace. We accept his grace through faith, but our faith is evidenced by our words and deeds. Our works show the faith in our hearts; therefore, faith and works bring us salvation through grace. Galatians 5:6 tells us that only faith working through love saves. This is the basis of my argument against the belief in "eternal security". Nowhere does the Bible guarantee salvation to the Christian. On the contrary we are constantly warned against falling away. Even St. Paul didn't assume he was saved. Quite frankly, if St. Paul wouldn't do it, I'm not going to do it.

I could go on with many more examples, but I think you get the picture. The Catholic Church makes it VERY easy to know what it is She teaches. If you want to take issue with anything she actually teaches. I'd be glad to discuss it with you. But please, know what it is you're protesting against. Don't knowingly proffer falsehoods as truth and if I tell you what you say we believe is not accurate, allow me to explain.

By discussing our faith, we can all grow in our faith with God's grace. Isn't that what we all want?
God Bless!!