Also, I would like to point out Galatians 5:12 “I wish those who unsettle you [over circumcision] would emasculate themselves!” (I think this can be extended to overemphasizing works in general, but I will not present an argument for that here since I have not given it enough thought yet)

The protestant explanation of people “falling away” is that they never had true faith in the first place. Some may consider this a dogmatic cop-out, but it is no different from responding “prove it” to someone who says “God does not exist”.

I would also like to point out that many protestants (including me) believe that anyone who says he has faith and does no good works is lying. The point is to emphasize faith, realizing that genuine faith will bear the fruit of works, not to look at works and try to gauge faith (which is unfair to people who try to obey “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”). However, it is ridiculous and unproductive to claim that someone may know with total certainty whether another person is saved.

As for losing salvation and mortal sin, I’d like to raise the discussion to a higher level. First of all, in this post the Pauline methodology was abandoned and 1 John and the CCC were brought into the picture. Why aren’t the Pauline passages enough? Indeed it seems to me this is one of the biggest challenges to the Catholic Paul: Paul doesn’t talk about losing salvation or sanctifying grace by a single mortal sin – he talks about the fact that those who consistently live wicked lives contrary to the Spirit of God will be jugded accordingly on the last day and excluded from the Kingdom. It doesn’t seem to be at all the common Catholic mindset of going back and forth between the state of grace and the state of sin with one consented evil or lustful thought here or there and a subsequent confession to a priest. There is no exhortation to repent and get back into the state of grace through confession to a person who has received holy orders and the supernatural power to absolve sins in persona Christi. Rather Christians living in sin are simply called to live according to the spirit. The verdict will be given on the day of judgment. This is how it seems to me at present, but I’m still struggling with this and trying to think it through.

If the above argument was put to me, I would have to answer by appealing to the case of the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5 and his restoration in 2 Cor 2. This is the closest we get to a mortal sin excluding a Christian from communion and absolution in persona Christi by a minister of Christ (Paul!). But there are problems with this too. How does one then distinguish between mortal sin and excommunication? This practice seems to apply only to huge sins – Paul doesn’t do the same to the numerous other flesh-bound Corinthians or Galatians. What all of this has done to me is really to redefine my concept of mortal sins. I was much more scrupulous before, but Pauline spirituality forces me to not be overly concerned about falling from grace unless there is a very grave and a very deliberate apostasy or immorality… which I trust the spirit will keep me away from. What do you think about this?

As for losing salvation and mortal sin, I’d like to raise the discussion to a higher level. First of all, in this post the Pauline methodology was abandoned and 1 John and the CCC were brought into the picture. Why aren’t the Pauline passages enough? Indeed it seems to me this is one of the biggest challenges to the Catholic Paul: Paul doesn’t talk about losing salvation or sanctifying grace by a single mortal sin – he talks about the fact that those who consistently live wicked lives contrary to the Spirit of God will be jugded accordingly on the last day and excluded from the Kingdom. It doesn’t seem to be at all the common Catholic mindset of going back and forth between the state of grace and the state of sin with one consented evil or lustful thought here or there and a subsequent confession to a priest. There is no exhortation to repent and get back into the state of grace through confession to a person who has received holy orders and the supernatural power to absolve sins in persona Christi. Rather Christians living in sin are simply called to live according to the spirit. The verdict will be given on the day of judgment. This is how it seems to me at present, but I’m still struggling with this and trying to think it through.

If the above argument was put to me, I would have to answer by appealing to the case of the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5 and his restoration in 2 Cor 2. This is the closest we get to a mortal sin excluding a Christian from communion and absolution in persona Christi by a minister of Christ (Paul!). But there are problems with this too. How does one then distinguish between mortal sin and excommunication? This practice seems to apply only to huge sins – Paul doesn’t do the same to the numerous other flesh-bound Corinthians or Galatians. What all of this has done to me is really to redefine my concept of mortal sins. I was much more scrupulous before, but Pauline spirituality forces me to not be overly concerned about falling from grace unless there is a very grave and a very deliberate apostasy or immorality… which I trust the spirit will keep me away from. What do you think about this?

If you listen to podcasts or have an mp3 player, you may find that my podcast on “Confession and Mortal Sin” provides more pieces to the jigsaw puzzle:

http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/07/episode-6-saint-paul-on-confession-and-mortal-sin/

Regarding, the “restore again,” Hebrews 6 isn’t saying that people can’t repent and turn again to Christ (otherwise, St Peter the pope would never have repented and been restored by Christ). Instead, Hebrews is saying that such a person can’t be “restored” in the state of apostasy (or in the context of the Epistle – by returning to Judaism).

Catholics read Hebrews 6 like this: “It’s impossible to for someone to be reconciled to Christ so long as they are crucifying the Son of God again in a state of apostasy.” The teaching is not “A person can’t repent.” The true teaching is, “You can’t return to ceremonial Judaism AND still remain Christian.”

This is similar to Saint John’s warning about “mortal sin” in 1 John 5:16:

“There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.”

He says that we shouldn’t try to pray for the forgiveness of one who has committed mortal sin – because in that state there is no forgiveness. We have to pray for an interior change through grace (real reconciliation with Christ), before such a sin can be remitted.

As a Catholic Christian, I have discovered that all these passages complement one another and make a cohesive whole. As a non-Catholic I had jigsaw pieces that were left over and seemingly didn’t belong to the puzzle. Hebrews 6 and 1 John 5:16 regarding mortal sin just didn’t fit my Reformed theological system. Only as a Catholic did those verses finally “fit”.

Great comment and I agree. Losing salvation can be an overly confusing phrase. For Catholicism, salvation is very much a “future” reality. And yes, we cannot become “unborn” after being “reborn”. I like your stress on the biblical theme of “inheritance”. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. I need to reassess as to which is the best way to present this topic.

The Patristic metaphor of “shipwrecking” is also very good, but inheritance is more biblical. Thanks Ed!

The scriptures also speak of an inheritance which is “laid up in the heavens for you” (1 Peter 1: 4). This is a familial term, and if the Bible is going to use the term inheritance, then we must apply those understandings of an inheritance to our salvation.

First of all, what is the inheritance? It can only be one thing — eternal life. This is even the understanding Jesus places upon eternal life. (Mk. 10:17; Luke 10:25; Luke 18:18). The Bible also speaks of this inheritance of eternal life (1 Corin. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5:21).

Therefore, in the same manner that one can lose one’s earthly inheritance by bad behavior or bringing disgrace upon the family name, so we can lose our inheritance of eternal life by bad behavior (unrepented of mortal sin). We have not lost our salvation, which was that grace by which we were made adopted children of God. We are still adopted children. But we have lost the inheritance which God has set aside for all His children who remain faithful to the covenant they are in.

When we as Catholics say we can “lose our salvation” it sounds like we are saying that we can be “unborn again” and it confuses Protestants. I think it would be much better to say that we can lose that which our salvation has set aside for us — the inheritance of eternal life.

But that’s just my .02 on the subject, and is worth about that much!

Ed

St. Paul, pray for us, that we may be made WORTHY of the promises of Christ.