The Justification 2×2 DEBATE (Horn/Akin vs. Nesan/Boyce)

In this episode, Trent and Jimmy Akin team up to debate two Protestants, Samuel Nesan and Dr. Stephen Boyce, on the doctrine of justification.

Transcription:

Host:
Alright. All right. Thank you you guys for joining me. Thank you. Thank you for joining me. I’m excited for this one. I’m glad we was able to hash out all the information. If you guys only understood how I was standing by my phone in my email, look for correspondence between you guys, man, trying to make sure you guys get the information to each other. Man, it was a long state, a long ordeal, put it that way. But I appreciate you guys dealing with being patient and everything. So we’re going to jump into this debate, but before we jump into it, I’m going to give you guys a chance to introduce yourselves to the audience. Let ’em know what you do. Blogs, YouTube channel. Y’all are popular guys, so they probably already know who you are, but you never know. It may be one or two out there that do not know who you are all. So start with Trent and Jamie, if you don’t mind giving a quick introduction of yourself.
Horn:
Well, my name is Trent Horn. I am a Catholic apologist. I am a staff apologist Catholic Answers been there for about 12 years. I have a podcast, the Council of Trent, C-O-U-N-S-E-L, bill on iTunes, Google Play, and of course on YouTube. I’m the author of I think about a dozen books by now and I’m married and have three children.
Akin:
Alright, Jimmy. And my name is Jimmy Aiken. I’m a Christian apologist and a Catholic apologist in particular. I am the senior apologist at Catholic Cancers. I’ve been working there for over 30 years now and I’m on a bunch of podcasts. The most famous one, which is in this week, it’s a top 10 podcast on Apple for documentary podcasts. It’s called Jimmy Aikens Mysterious World. I look at all kinds of mysterious subjects and it’s family friendly show and you can get to it by going to mysterious fm.
Host:
Alright. All right, thank you Trent and Jimmy for joining me. Appreciate it. All right, Dr. Steven, boy and Sam, I got your name screwed up, but don’t worry about that. Go ahead and give a quick introduction yourself, Sam, one of y’all.
Nesan:
So can you hear me?
Host:
Yeah, we can hear you. You’re breaking up a little bit, but let’s see if it stables itself out.
Nesan:
Perfect. Alright, well I’m Samuel, not Steven Bo, I wish. Yeah. But yeah, I’m an Christian apologist and I’m also the director of the Great Commission Apologetics program at Malaysia Baptist Geological Seminary. I teach there, I’ve been teaching there since 21. And I’m also the co-founder and president of Explain International and Ministry dedicated to equipping Christians to explain their faith in fulfilling the Great Commission.
Boyce:
And I’m Steven Boyce. I am an apologist as well. Specifically have my own program called Facts, which is an acronym for Fathers apocryphal, Canon texts and scripture. Our main focus is particularly early church history in defending the Christian faith from its early formations. I’m also a part of a scholarship working in the scholar program with RTB Reasons to Believe with Dr. Hugh Ross, which is mostly in the sciences, but lately they’ve been bringing in textual criticism and canonicity as well, which is what I did my PhD in. I’m also a teacher, I teach apologetics to 11th to 12th graders and high school and I’m also an adjunct professor in addition to what Samuel does with Malaysia Baptist Theological Seminary. I’m also an Anglican and have recently been working with the Anglican diocese that I’m a part of the Diocese of the Carolinas where fax has been sanctioned to be used a part of its equipping process.
Host:
Alright, thank you guys for those introductions and we’re going to jump right into it. And the topic of today’s debate is how should we understand justification? We’ll be approaching this from a biblical and a historical church historical standpoint. A first part of the debate will be from a biblical standpoint and we’ll start that with 10 minute opening statements. It’ll be five minute rebuttals, then it’d a 15 minute cross section. Both opponents will be get a chance to ask each other’s questions and then audience keep this in mind as well. There will be a 15 minute q and a right after that. So you guys got to get your questions in. Now we’re going to use that same format for the second part of this debate, which is what did the early church believe about justification and where we approach the debate from a church historical standpoint. And once again the format would be 10 minute openings, five minute rebuttals, and then 15 minute cross-examination where both parties get to ask questions. And once again after that, that will introduce another 15 minute q and a from our audience. And then after all of that we’ll have a seven minute closing statement from each team and then that will conclude the debate for tonight. Are we all on the same page with that?
Alright, with that said, Samuel, you’ll be presenting a biblical argument. And Samuel, I believe that you will be presenting first here. And so I will bring the screen up here so that you will have the floor and I will start your time. Give me a second, Samuel, before you go for it. Let me get your audio and everything situated. And so Samuel, you have 10 minutes and I’ll start your time and you begin to speak
Nesan:
Thank Jimmy and Trent for being open and having this discussion on an important topic that is the topic of justification. Specifically I’ll be dealing with the question, what justifies a person before? And perhaps it’s good to deal with the definitions before we get started. Thanks Jimmy for doing the slides for me. So let’s move to definitions. Let’s begin by defining justification because one of the key texts for this debate is Romans 3 28. That is we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. So these things need to be justified to be defined. And so let’s begin with the word justification. It comes from the Greek word, the cayo, and it means to render right or just to hold as guiltless or to accept as righteous. I’m using Jimmy’s favorite lexicon here that is mount as lexicon. The word fate on the other hand.
Number two comes from the Greek with and can refer to faith, belief firm, persuasion of firm conviction. Now I look forward to having a discussion between what kind of faith we’re talking about here. Is it fiduciary faith? Is it fi for matter formed faith? That’s an important discussion to have, but we’ll get into that in just a minute. The third one that we need to define, and this is perhaps important, very important especially when discussing what works is works can refer to according to mounds are gone, can refer to anything done or to be done. That is a duty we have before God be the 10 commandments, be it the sacraments, whatever we need to do before God counts as works now that’s it. Let’s discuss this point. When we say that we are justified by faith alone, do we mean that it is a ascent which is delo from any commitment to charity?
Well, no. In fact Luther in his definition of faith, the next slide says Faith is God’s work in us. That is that it gives us new birth from God and is working of John one 13. It changes our heart. There is regeneration and he goes on to say faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continue to do them without seizing anyone who does not do good works based on Luther’s definition in this manner is an unbeliever. Now Kelvin says something similar as well, which I think we may find a little bit of common ground, especially when we discuss Fe is for mother and that is Kelvin says indeed we confess that with Paul that no other faith justifies but faith working through love here is interacting with Galatians five, six. So I’m going to be making three contention. The first contention I’m making would be that saving faith is a gift of God which is attained through the merits of Christ. Apart from works now this is the two most light star. Thanks Jimmy.
The next one. Yeah, thank you. Alright, so saving fate is a gift of God which is attained through the merits of Christ. Apart from works we see in Ephesians two was eight to nine, maybe we could just flash all the verse up. I won’t be covering all of them due to time, but Ephesians two was eight to nine says four, by grace you have been saved through faith. This is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God, not of works as anyone should boast in Acts 1348, as many as were appointed unto eternal life believed. So God’s appointment precedes them. Believing Acts 16 tells us that the Lord opened up her heart referring to Lydia that she would pay attention to what was being said by Paul. And so we see even in one John five, four, everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world.
And what is that victory? Well, John tells us that this is the victory that has overcome the world, our faith. And so through these passages we see that faith is a gift of God. That is something we attain based on the merits of Christ and not based on anything we do. Number two, this faith and I call it saving faith to be distinguished from just a mere intellectual ascent Dewars from the good works that we see described in James chapter two. This faith is accompanied by the good works and I’ll define that in just a minute. But it stems from the new birth of regeneration and it includes among good works, genuine repentance, godly living, a genuine hunger and thirst for righteousness, a demonstration of the fruits of the spirit and participation in the sacraments and so on. So now Peter the Apostle Peter deals with this in two Peter chapter one, he begins in verse one by saying Simeon Peter servant an apostle of Jesus Christ to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing widows by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
So notice it is a faith that is equal standing with Peter. Yes, you and I believers have the faith of equal standing with the Apostle Peter himself, but it is not based on what we’ve done. It is based on the merits or the works or the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. And in fact, Peter urges the church was five to say for this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, and goes on to add brotherly love dealing with affection and among other things that we need to supplement the faith with. He goes on to say in verse nine, for whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind having forgotten he was cleansed from his former sins. And so Peter sums us up by telling us that we ought to be diligent in verse 10 that confirm our calling an election.
So based on this one sees that the faith we received is a fate from God. But this is no intellectual, mere intellectual ascent. It is a faith that is accompanied by repentance, by godly living. It is demonstrating the fruits of the spirit. It is supplementing that faith with the fruits of that fate, namely virtue, steadfastness godliness and brotherly affection among other things. And so when we look at this particular view of this that leads to the third and final part of this, that is that the saving fate we receive from God is both eternal, that it brings about eternal life and as the sole basis for our justification before God. Philippians one, six gives us the promise that he who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ. Again, this is not just someone saying, well I believe but does not demonstrate it.
The demonstration of that fate is fruits of the genuine fate working itself out through love. First Peter three, five says, blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you. That’s the promise. And look at verse five, who are kept by the power of God, true faith for salvation to be revealed in the last time. So we are kept by the power of God, not based on our own doing, but we’re kept true faith and it demonstrates, it reveals the good works that God is working within us. Now in my closing few minutes, just what I want do is to just demonstrate this saving faith, all that I’ve discussed here.
That is number one, that this saving faith is a gift of God attained through the merits of Christ by faith, this faith, sorry, is attained by the merits of Christ. And number two, this faith is demonstrated or evidence by good words, it stems from a regenerated heart. And number three, it results in godly living. And when we look through the patriarchs of the Old Testament, we see of course that Adam sinned before God and we find a beautiful promise of Genesis three 15 where God says to him, O says to the serpent rather that he would cause this enmity to come between the serpent and the woman and that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent. That’s a foreshadow of the blessed mother Mary who gives birth to the seed of that woman that is the Lord Jesus Christ himself who crushes the head of the serpent.
And when Adam ceased this in Genesis three 20, he declares by faith that this woman he now calls Eve is the mother of all the living. And so what makes Adam look at Eve after what she’s just done together with him and say she’s the mother of the living well, he sees her in view in the lens of God’s promises. That is true her the seed will come that provides victory to the world. And instantly after that, verse 21, Adam is coward. His shame is by the kid. And so we see this. It’s my time up already.
Speaker 6:
No, you got one minute left.
Nesan:
One minute left. Oh gotcha. Thank you. Yeah, and when we look through the life of Noah, we see in the context of an evil world, Noah found favor in God’s eyes. You look at the words of Abraham, he was justified by faith in Genesis 15 verse six. And then in Genesis chapter 22 was 10 to 12. We see that the angel says to him, now I know that you fear God. So which came first? Was it the faith, the justified him or was it the works? We see that the order is the other way around. That is the faith leading to works. But it’s like I said, no intellectual asset. Now I’m going to stop here due to time, but I look forward to hearing and learning from my Catholic friends here on the topic of justification. Thank you very much.
Host:
Alright, thank you Sam for that opening. All right, so Jimmy, you’re up for your 10 minute opening statement and oh yeah, I forgot to tell you guys about that little chime. That is a one minute indication. You have one minute left in your presentation. So sorry about that. I forgot to let you guys know that. But
Akin:
So I wanted to start by noting a principle that St. Paul mentions in second Timothy. He says, Timothy needs to warn folks not to quarrel about words, not to dispute about ’em because it’s not beneficial and it only leads to the ruin of the hearers. So what we can learn from that is that if we agree on the substance of doctrine, even if we use different language to express it, we shouldn’t quarrel about that. Now of course, in order to resolve disputes about words, you frequently need to talk about their meaning. So talking about words is not the same thing as quarrel and about ’em. I recently debated someone who seemed deeply confused on that point. A keyword we should talk about is faith. This term is used in different senses and it’s used in at least three ways in the New Testament. The first kind which is mentioned in James two 19 is intellectual faith.
It’s just agreement with the teachings of the Christian faith. But that’s not saving faith because James says even the demons believe have faith in that sense and yet they shudder. A step up from that is what’s called fiducial faith. And this involves not only intellectual belief but also trust in God, but that also is not saving faith. As Paul says in one Corinthians 13, if I have faith so that I could move mountains, so he’s really trusting God but don’t have love, I’m nothing and it doesn’t benefit him anything, then there’s what’s known as formed faith or faith formed by charity. So it incorporates intellectual belief, it incorporates trust and it incorporates love. And this is what the Catholic church understands sa faith to be. As Paul says in Galatians five, six, in Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything but faith working through love well.
So how to Protestants understand justification? We heard a presentation from Samuel and he touched on points that are commonly made by many in the Protestant community. I would note that the Westminster confession of faith, which is used by many Calvinists, says that faith is the alone instrument of justification. So it’s faith only yet it is not alone in the person justified but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces and is no dead faith but worketh by love. So the Westminster confession acknowledges that saving faith works by love, it needs to incorporate love. It’s formed faith. Many Protestant formulations use the expression we are justified by grace alone through faith alone. So does the Catholic church agree with that? Well, we’ve got Ephesians two eight and our Bibles too, which says, for by grace you are saved through faith. So we believe in justification by grace.
The Council of Trent in its decree on justification said this. This is from chapter eight. It said, we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously meaning by grace because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works merit the grace of justification for if it is by grace it is not now by works otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no more grace. So the Council of Trent agrees nothing preceding justification merits it and consequently we’re justified by grace in the joint declaration on the doctrine of justification that the Catholic church signed a number of years ago with the Lutheran World Federation and later several other groups, it says We together, we meaning Catholics and Lutherans confess by grace alone in faith in Christ’s save and work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to do good works.
So the Catholic church agrees that we’re justified by grace alone. Well what about faith alone? Well, here I have to make a little bit of a terminology note. Scripture never says that we’re justified by faith alone. It says a lot about being justified by faith, but it doesn’t use the language faith alone. That phrase only appears once in scripture where James says that you see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. So faith alone is not the language of scripture. But I’m not here to quarrel about words, though I am here to talk about their meaning to end quarrels and understood correctly. Catholics can affirm faith alone according to the annex, to the joint declaration which the Catholic church signed justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone the person is justified apart from works. And it’s not just the joint declaration that says that Pope Benedict six said this a few years ago, he said Luther’s phrase, faith alone is true if it is not opposed to faith in charity in love.
So it is that in the letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification that St. Paul speaks of faith that works through love. So the Catholic church agrees that we are justified through faith alone understood correctly. Now that may surprise some of our listeners who come from the Protestant community because they’re often told that the Council of Trent condemned faith alone, but it actually didn’t. If you read the decree on justification from Trent, this is Canon nine, what it says is this. If anyone shall say that by faith alone, the emus is justified so that he would understand. So it’s specifying a meaning for this phrase. If he understands that nothing else is required to cooperate in order unto the obtaining of the grace of justification and that it is not in any respect necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, then that’s what they reject.
So they’re not objecting to the formula of faith alone own. They’re objecting to a particular understanding of it. And since it mentioned that the kind of faith alone they’re rejecting is a kind that says you don’t need to do anything with your will, they’re not even condemning fiducial faith because you use your will to trust God. So what they’re condemning is the idea that we are saved by intellectual faith alone merely believe in Christian doctrine. And there are multiple Orthodox Catholic authors including doctors of the church who used the faith alone formula prior to the reformation like St. Augustine who lived in the fifth century. And St. Thomas Aquinas who lived in the 13th century. Both of them among others, used the formula faith alone. They just clarified that it’s faith which works through love or formed faith. So formed faith is, as I said, it involves love as well as trust and intellectual belief.
And we see multiple passages in the New Testament that underscore this. I mentioned Galatians five, six where Paul says what counts is faith working through love? Also, in one Corinthians 13 he said, if I have faith to remove mountains but don’t have love, I’m nothing, it benefits me nothing. And in one John three 14, John says, we know that we have passed over from death to life because we love the brothers. And then he says, the one who does not love remains in death. So love is an essential component of saving faith. And you know who agreed with that? Well John Calvin. Calvin viewed unformed faith that is faith without love as unworthy of the name faith. And in his institutes of the Christian religion, he criticizes those who would use the word faith to mean intellectual faith because he says by this, they would deform faith by depriving it of love.
And as I noted, the Westminster confession agreed with that. It said that faith that justifies is faith that works by love. And a lot of people today have agreed with that. That’s what the joint declaration on the doctrine of justification says. It was signed by the Catholic church in 1999 and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999, the World Methodist Council joined in 2006. The Anglican Consultative Council approved it in 2016 and the world communion of Reformed churches approved it in 2017. So consequently we can agree that man is justified by grace alone through faith alone, provided you understand that correctly and that’s something we can all celebrate.
Host:
Alright, thank you Jimmy for that opening and Samuel as well. So now we’re going to drop it to the first part is debate rebuttal. And Samuel, you’re back in the seat for your five minute rebuttal and so lemme bring you back up and I’ll start your time when you begin to speak.
Nesan:
Well thank you. Thanks very much Jimmy for that opening. I really appreciate the clarity and charity in which Jimmy can tell. And so let’s go back to my own statement. In my opening statement I highlighted three say This is a gift of God which is the merit of Christ apart from works. And as I heard the, I don’t think there was anything in there that challenged that first premise at all. And so the words of Jimmy himself, yeah, I celebrate the fact that that first premise is granted. Plus of course we are having a disagreement on concept, which that is, we can maybe explore that towards the cross-examination. I wouldn’t celebrate the fact that there’s no disagreement at least right now on that first point. Number two, fate is evidenced by an accompanied by good works. If you remember Jimmy’s opening statement, I love the fact that he cited First John three 13, I believe he cited.
That is we know we have passed over and the reason we know we have passed over, and I can’t remember the exact words, is because we love indeed that if the fact that love becomes an indicator, it becomes the evidence that we’ve passed over from death to life that we’ve passed over from a state of unbelief to a state of belief, then that’s great. That’s something that we don’t necessarily disagree about. And I also perhaps should state this in the larger context, that this is not a debate between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in practices and all that. This is specifically dealing with the topic of justification. And so I’m limiting and confining my discussion to the topic alone. Now what about the third premise or the third contention that is this saving fate alone is the basis of our justification before God here. Once again, I celebrate the fact that Jimmy says that, well we shouldn’t battle our words, we shouldn’t dispute our words as St.
Paul mentioned, but rather we should deal with substance. And when we look at substance, we should ask ourselves, well does the Catholic church, or at least in this case, Jimmy agreed with us that fate alone is the basis upon which we stand justified. And based on that presentation that he made, I don’t see any disagreements on that third point as well. In fact, what was really interesting is that he cited Pope Benedict 16 in a recent statement where he said, quote being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ and this suffices further observances are no longer necessary. And this is what Pope Benedict says, and I quote for this reason, Luther Free’s faith alone is true if it is not opposed to faith in charity in love. And so here I have one minor concern and that is what does Pope Benedict mean when he says faith in charity?
And perhaps this is just me not being under clear on what he means because he does go on in a next sentence to say, faith is looking at Christ and trusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ that we can agree on. But if faith means conformed to Christ, well then positionally I may be conformed based on my union in Christ, I may be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, but in experience from a sanctification point, I’m not there yet. Is Pop Benedict saying that therefore that that would experiential sanctification constitutes what is true faith? Well, I’m not sure and I do not want to be guilty of misreading him on that one. But if it means that faith alone is truly looking at Christ and trusting what’s after Christ, then I think that we’ve got a lot of agreement here as far as the topic of the debate is concerned. Thank you.
Host:
Alright, thank you. Thank you Sam for that rebuttal. And Jim, you’re right back in the seat for your five minute rebuttal of Sam’s opening statement. I start your time and you begin to speak.
Akin:
Sounds good. So I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to find so much area of agreement and Samuel’s right, that we always need to be careful to make sure that we’re understanding things correctly, at least as far as this subject of justification goes. One issue that he raised was how does the Catholic church understand sanctification and what would Pope Benedict say that you need to be completely experientially sanctified in order to be justified because none of us are completely experientially sanctified. And the answer is no. You don’t have to be perfect in this life. The Catholic church is fully aware of that. That’s why we got the sacrament of confession. So the way the Catholic church understands this is you come to God by faith and if you have faith that works through charity to use St. Paul’s phrase, if you have faith formed by love, then you’re justified and you don’t need to do any good works to get into that state.
Just like that quote from the Council of Trent that I read, you’re justified, God makes you righteous. He imputes Christ’s righteousness to you, he also transforms you and he then helps to purify you over the course of the Christian life in the Protestant community that after initial justification phase where he purifies you is often called sanctification, which comes from a root that means to make holy. In the Catholic church we also use the term sanctification, but we also refer to that second phase as another justification, as ongoing justification as you grow in righteousness, in terms of experiential righteousness. So we don’t have to be perfect in this life, we’re not, but the Catholic church certainly does not understand that you have to be perfect in order to be just before God. God takes away all that pertains to the nature of sin. So you may still have disordered inclinations that would lead you to sin, that tempt you, but when God justifies you, he takes away sin itself from your soul so that you no longer have it. And consequently, I think there is a lot of room here where we can find agreement. If Samuel or the others in the q and a period would like to or in the cross-examination period would like to pose particular challenges, I’ll be more than happy to explain the Catholic perspective on them. I
Host:
Alright. Alright, cool. Thank you guys for the rebuttal. So now we’re about to enter our cross-examination portion of this debate, and once again, this will be a 15 minute cross X for both parties to get 15 minutes each to ask questions. And so we are going to start it off with Samuel, which are 15 minute cross-examination of Jimmy and Trent. Obviously Dr. Steven boy should be able to jump in if you feel you need to or you desire to, but this should be a fun cross-ex. If you can answer your opponent’s question with a simple yes or no, please do that. You do not want to bog your opponent’s time down. But with that said, Samuel, you’re up first for your 15 minute cross-ex of Trent and Jimmy,
Nesan:
Thank you Marlin and thank you Jimmy for that rebuttal period. Yeah, trust. I’m still audible. Alright, yeah, I just want to, in this cross-examination, want to focus specifically on clarification just to make sure that we understand one another. So I’m having difficulty hearing is my audio connected? Okay, great. Yeah, let me start with the first question just to see whether we are on the same page. In Galatians Paul in chapter five informs the Galatians that if they try to be circumcised to be justified before God, they have fallen from grace. So do you view that if one keeps the mosaic law for the purpose of attaining justification, that that would amount to the heresy or the anathema that Paul proclaims to the Galatians in Galatians one eight of believing in a different gospel?
Akin:
Yes.
Nesan:
Thank you. So do you think that that applies only to circumcision or by default to charity as well? Because charity is entailed in the mosaic law.
Akin:
So here we’re getting into an area that is not Catholic church teaching where there’s the church allows biblical scholars to have a range of opinion. So I can tell you my opinion, my understanding is, and I wrote a book where I discussed this, but my understanding is if you’re obeying the mosaic law because you think you need to do that in order to be right with God, then that is another gospel. It’s the gospel of the Mosaic law, not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, it is true that charity is commanded in the Mosaic law, but charity is also commanded by what Paul calls the law of Christ. And so we’re supposed to be charitable, not because the mosaic law says to, but because Christ himself says to. And so consequently, if I’m trying to be charitable to people because Jesus Christ tells me I need to be, then I’m obeying Christ. I’m not obeying the mosaic law, and so I’m not falling afoul of the anathema because I’m not obeying the mosaic law to try to be saved. I’m trying to do the will of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
Nesan:
No thank you. That’s really clear.
Boyce:
I think Trent was jumping in. Samuel Trent was going to
Nesan:
Chime. Sorry, go ahead please.
Boyce:
I can’t hear Trent either.
Nesan:
Hey Trent, are you muted?
Horn:
Sorry, it was my bad. Yeah, yeah. I would say just because someone, it is another gospel to attempt to be justified by something that God did not command for the new covenant name of the Mosaic law. It doesn’t follow that a part of the gospel is to be obedient to the things God did command for those who are under the new covenant, such as charity, obedience to Christ commands, things like that
Nesan:
Wonder. Okay. In that case, just to clarify from Trent, would you say there are things that Jesus taught that are not directly or indirectly taken from the Mosaic law?
Horn:
Are there things that Jesus taught that are not taken from the OSA law,
Nesan:
His commands, sorry, his commands? Are there any of Christ’s commands that are not directly or indirectly or derived from the mosaic law?
Horn:
Sure. Well, the command to be baptized, the command to receive him in the Eucharist are not found in the mosaic law.
Nesan:
Do you see that the Eucharist is in a sense derived from the Mosaic law in that you have the Eucharist represented in Genesis, in the Passover feast in that it’s a continuation of that same trajectory?
Horn:
It’s certainly prefigured in the Old Testament and Christ is its fulfillment because Paul says that Christ is our Paschal lamb who has been sacrificed, but it itself is prefigured by the Passover. It’s not identical to the same thing.
Nesan:
Yeah, agreed. It’s definitely derived. So that’s why I say it’s derived from the Mosaic law. So in that sense, wouldn’t Christ command of charity itself by that same standard or by that same understanding be derived from the mosaic law to lift God with all the heart, soul and mind and to live neighbor as oneself?
Horn:
Well, I think, and I’d like to hear Jimmy’s thoughts on this as well. I think we’re dealing with a little bit of a composition fallacy here that just because Christ commands us to be obedient to something that can be found in the mosaic law, it doesn’t follow therefore that you should be obedient to the mosaic law for salvation.
Akin:
Yeah. Trent is right. There’s a danger of a composition fallacy here. Just because the Mosaic law says something doesn’t mean that’s what Paul’s talking about when he tells those who would want to be justified by circumcision that they’ve fallen from grace. You could use exactly the same logic to say, well, the Mosaic law says you need to love your neighbor. So those of you who are trying to love your neighbor have fallen from grace If you’re trying to love your neighbor, no, that’s not what Paul’s talking about. He clearly expects us to love our neighbors. That’s something Jesus commanded us. So Paul’s problem is not with loving your neighbor or taking the Eucharist or anything like that. Paul’s problem is if you think that the mosaic law and obedience to it will save you, that’s a different gospel because the mosaic law taken as a whole does not save people. That doesn’t mean the mosaic law doesn’t contain good things that we need to do, love our neighbor and be baptized and receive communion even though it doesn’t mention the Christian sacraments, but they are prefigured in it. What Paul’s objecting to is trust in the mosaic law itself for salvation,
Horn:
Like someone who loved their neighbor just because it says that in Leviticus, not because that’s part of the command we’re under now the law of Christ.
Nesan:
I think there may be misunderstanding in the way that perhaps I framed the question. Thank you for clarifying that. So what I’m suggesting is that if one says that the mosaic law commands charity or let’s go with the command of Christ, Christ says that I need to love my neighbor as myself so that if I use that as a basis in saying that because Christ commanded it, and if I don’t love my neighbor as myself, I cannot make it into the kingdom of God, therefore I’m trying to be justified by God, by obeying the command of Christ. Would you say that that falls under the same issue as well since Christ, again, you called it a composition fallacy. I’m not quite sure it is, but it’s derived from the mosaic law and that Christ is simply explaining what a mosaic law is. Sorry for the long question.
Akin:
No problem. So in order to be saved, one of the requirements for justifying faith because it incorporates love, is repentance of sin. You can’t love God if you’re hating your brother, for example, as St. John says. So you need to repent of your sin in order to have justifying faith. And if Christ then says, love your neighbor, well that doesn’t mean I need to love my neighbor to get into a state of justification. He puts me in that state and good works then flow from that state of justification. Now, if I then do something gravely contrary to love of neighbor, like let’s say I murder my neighbor knowingly and deliberately, well then I have unrepented because you can’t murder your neighbor and still have love for God as John indicates. So if I then turn on my neighbor and literally stab him in the back and puncture his heart and kill him, I’m no longer loving God. I no longer have justifying faith, but it wasn’t merit or obedience that put me into the state of justification.
Nesan:
So in other words, just to clarify and follow up from that, it’s that once I’m justified, I need to keep on producing. Or would you say it is that the justification itself leads to these good works coming out?
Akin:
It leads to the good works because we have the love of God poured into our heart and love is the essence of good works, which Paul says in Ephesians, God created us in Christ for those good works. So obviously they’re meant to flow from us being in Christ, which happens at the moment of justification.
Nesan:
I love that. Yeah. So just following through from that, do you believe that this state of justification which begins is a once for all justification, that because we are justified, he who began a good work in us will bring it to completion and perfection. Do you see that as being a, which leads to the end? It doesn’t make sense. I’m sorry, the question is phrased that No,
Akin:
I understand the core concept. No, I don’t believe in perseverance of the saints or eternal security because we need ongoing forgiveness. That’s why in the Central Christian prayer that Jesus himself gave us the Lord’s prayer. We petition, God forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors, and that means if we commit new sins, we need new forgiveness. So this idea that you sometimes hear in some Protestant circles that you’ve been forgiven all of your sins past, present, and future does not correspond to the biblical worldview. And there are other passages I could illustrate it with, but I don’t want to chew up your time, so I’ll just cite the Lord’s prayer.
Horn:
And I just want to a quick add to that, that I also reject eternal security and that I wouldn’t follow from the passage you cited. That’s Philippians one, six. Paul is not talking about all believers, he’s talking about the Philippians in particular. He’s confident of that because in the next verse he says, it is right for me to think this way about all of you. I hold you in my heart. You’re my partners in God’s grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. He had a confidence in them because of the works that they had exhibited to him, not just because they were justified.
Nesan:
Okay, thank you. So let me move on then to the question of if let’s say one does, I mean one is justified by faith and we’re not talking about any intellectual ascent. We’re talking about saving faith and they fall into a state of mortal sin. How do they get back to do they need to? How did they get back to a state of justification again?
Akin:
So the ordinary way, and this is not just the Catholic understanding, but it’s also for example, the Lutheran understanding and the Anglican understanding and the Methodist understanding in order to enter a state of justification, the ordinary way it happens is three things. You repent, you believe the gospel and you get baptized and God puts you in a state of justification. That’s the ordinary way. It doesn’t mean that it’s the only way. So if someone is prevented from being baptized, for example, but they otherwise have justifying faith, they’ve got faith formed by charity, that alone puts them in a state of justification, even if they don’t have baptism, for example. Well, the church fathers referred to the sacrament of confession as the second plank after baptism. The idea is like you’ve been in a shipwreck, you grab a first plank to save your life, that’s baptism.
If you let go of that plank through mortal sin, you grab confession as a second plank to save you after the shipwreck. So if someone is justified and then commits, I mortal sin, they un repent and go back to not loving God, then you need to essentially do the same things. The first time you got justified was repent, believe and a sacrament. But since baptism is irre repeatable the second time and any subsequent times, it’s repentance, faith and go to confession, that’s the ordinary way it’s done. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only way. Just like an unbaptized person who has faith formed by charity is in a state of justification. If you re repent, let’s say you’re prevented from going to confession, if you re repent and you have faith formed by charity, that of itself puts you back into a state of justification.
Nesan:
And so if I do those things, which is to repent, to do a confession, I suppose you might add penance to that as well because that comes under the state of penance. Yeah. Sorry, were you going to clarify?
Akin:
Well, penance and confession are two names for the same sacrament and they’re both different parts of the sacrament, but yeah, but either however you want to frame it.
Nesan:
Right. And so one, oh, sorry, please go ahead. Yeah,
Akin:
Well I was just going to say it’s essentially the same sacrament, and so it’s not like you’re adding something in addition to confession as a sacrament.
Nesan:
Yeah, thank you. Thanks for the clarification. And so if one death confession and penance in that sense, is it certain on the basis of what they have done that God would now forgive them for the mortal sins they have committed?
Akin:
Well, we have God’s promise of grace. I mean, Jesus told the disciples on the day of the resurrection, whoever sins you forgive, they’re forgiven. Whoever sins you retained, they’re retained. And so yeah, we’ve got God’s promise on that. And as long as you’re sincere in your repentance, then when you go to confession, God’s going to forgive you.
Horn:
I would also say that,
Nesan:
Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Trent.
Horn:
Phenomenologically, I would say the Catholic view makes more sense. If you believe salvation cannot be lost and you believe you belong to the elect, but you’ve committed a very grave sin naturally, most Christians will ask God for forgiveness of that sin even though they don’t ask for every single sin, they commit to be forgiven. Yet I wonder why ask for that when the sins have already been forgiven and your status hasn’t changed?
Nesan:
Yeah. Sorry, just to follow up on what you just said about the Catholic view making more sense, the scripture stage, and I mentioned this in my third point, that it is eternal. There’s an eternal aspect to justification. If eternal life can be lost trend, in what way is eternal life eternal?
Horn:
It’s eternal because of what it’s ultimately oriented towards. It’s oriented towards life with God that it is. Forget the phrase that there is a Baptist scholar, Dale Moody, who gave a discussion about this. I’d love to find the quote because oh, he says it right here. He says they work with the false assumption that the adjective eternal is an adverb as if it says the brother eternally has life. It is the life that is eternal, not one’s possession of it. And he’s a Baptist who rejects perseverance of the saints his work. I would definitely recommend the word of truth.
Akin:
Yeah. Essentially what Dale Moody is essentially what Dale Moody is saying is that eternal in this case applies to the quality of the life because it unites you with the eternal God. It doesn’t refer to the length of the life, although if you remain united with the eternal God, you remain in eternal life.
Nesan:
Well, thank you Trent and Jimmy.
Host:
All right. Thank you for that cross X. All right. So Trent or Jimmy, you’re up next for your 15 minute cross mix cross X of Samuel and Dr. Boyce.
Akin:
Okay. So we’ve established, at least on the core issues of justification, what sounds like a considerable degree of harmony. You’ve raised some issues that I hope our answers you found acceptable. But one of the things I’d like to do is probe a aspects of the Catholic view of salvation that are sometimes treated as disqualifying Catholics from having a true gospel, even though they are believed by various Protestant groups. Like for example, and I’d be interested in having both Samuel Stephen weigh in on this, but for example, sometimes you’ll hear people use a dictionary, they’ll use a definition of works as anything you do, and so they’ll say, well, anything you do is a work, and therefore baptism is something you do. So baptism is a work, and if you think you’re justified in baptism, then you’re teaching a works gospel. Now, there are problems with this. Anything you do view of what constitutes a work, because we’re told to believe and we’re told to repent. And belief and repentance are things you do. So there’s obviously something wrong with this definition. Martin Luther was adamant that baptism is not a work. In fact, if you read his longer catechism, he’s actually kind of insulting towards people who believe this.
Absolutely, yeah. And so he’s adamant it’s not a work because it’s based on the promise of God and you’re simply accepting what God has promised. So given that Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and even Presbyterians in the case of elect infants, would say that baptism justifies you. Would you agree that the fact Catholics believe in baptismal regeneration does not mean that Catholics are teaching a false gospel?
Nesan:
Yeah, I think the question of baptismal regeneration is a issue that is, I mean, even in Lutheranism, it’s there. So it is not something that is uniquely Catholic in that sense. And I wanted, since you mentioned Luther’s view, if I could elaborate a little bit more on Luther’s view. I think for Luther, both faith and baptism were not works for a very simple reason is that they were done unto you. You are a passive recipient of both faith and baptism. In the case of faith. Faith, it is a gift of God not of works. So fate is given to me repentance. In second Timothy chapter two, I can’t remember the last few words. It says that perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to knowledge of the church. And so for Luther, he’s of fate and repentance as something that is being granted to a person by God. And the same thing, he just applied to baptism, which is that because of infant baptism, and by the way, I was infant baptized. Absolutely.
Akin:
Sorry. Yeah, I want to make sure that I have the opportunity to ask some more questions. So am I understanding you correctly that you do not believe that if you say someone is baptism regenerated, that that is not a false gospel? Is that your position?
Nesan:
Yes, because if I say baptismal regeneration is a false gospel, I would have to say that.
Akin:
Very good. Okay. Steven, would you agree with that? I would affirm that obviously as an Anglican, we believe that regeneration takes place in baptism so that it is not a work and the dependence, I don’t know anybody that’s depending the issue here is the word dependence. You talked about work. You’ve given me all I wanted. I’d like to ask about a new distinction now. So one of the things that Martin Luther believed is that it is possible to lose your salvation. He thought that would happen. If you lose your faith or apostatize, then you’re going to lose your salvation. So he didn’t believe that we’re forgiven for all our future sins, including any future apostasy. Similarly, in the Anglican communion, it’s traditional to acknowledge the possibility of loss of salvation, at least through the sin of apostasy. And the same thing is true in the Methodist tradition.
And the same thing is true in the Pentecostal tradition where it tends to be a little broader of some kind of very grave sin, and it’s true of free will Baptists and General Baptists. So we have within the Protestant community a broad selection of people who acknowledge that it is possible to lose one salvation through some kind of sin. Sometimes it’s limited to apostasy, sometimes it’s broader than that. And that’s exactly what the Catholic church says. It is possible to lose our salvation. So we haven’t been forgiven of our future sins yet. Would you say that all those Protestants who believe it’s possible to lose salvation like the Catholic church says it is, are they teaching a false gospel or does that mean that they’re not teaching a false gospel on this basis and that the Catholic church is also not teaching a false gospel on this basis?
Nesan:
Yeah, all the Protestant churches and the Catholic church that teaches that one can lose their salvation, that’s not a false gospel in and of itself, that alone. Good.
Akin:
Okay. Steven, do you agree with that, Steven?
Nesan:
Yeah, yeah. I wouldn’t call it a false
Akin:
Gospel. Okay. Let’s talk then about the idea that, let’s talk about one that’s often pitted. We haven’t mentioned it yet tonight, but oftentimes you’ll hear people say things like purgatory infringes on the work saving work of Christ, and it makes the Catholic church teaching a false gospel. Okay, well, that’s not the Catholic view on the Catholic view purgatory. What it does according to the catechism of the Catholic church is it purifies us of our remaining disorder desires. So what’s called sanctification in the Protestant community heals us as we mature in Christ over the course of the Christian life so that we become more experientially righteous. But very few people are perfectly experientially righteous at the time of death. They tend to have some remaining disordered desires, and yet we know nothing IPU is going to enter the heavenly city. So by the time we’re in heaven, we’re not going to be tempted anymore.
We’re not going to have disordered desires anymore. And so between death and heaven, something must happen that gives us freedom from temptation and makes us experientially righteous. So essentially purgatory is the final step in sanctification. Church doesn’t teach, it takes time. In fact, it actually casts some doubt on that idea, but something needs to happen. And all of this flows from Jesus Christ, just like our sanctification in this life is empowered by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. So the final step of sanctification or purgatory is also empowered by the cross of Christ and thus does not compete with the cross of Christ. It’s something God does to us. He purifies us. So with that understanding, many people in the Protestant community, especially in recent times, have become more open to purgatory like CS Lewis, and he died in 1963, but he said, our souls demand purgatory, don’t they? And similarly, there have been more recent authors in the Protestant community who acknowledged this. So I would be curious to note, do the two of you think that the idea, number one, do you agree that something needs to happen between death and heaven to give us the pure we need to be with God, as Hebrews says? And secondly, if you acknowledge that, would you agree that Catholic teaching on purgatory, as I’ve just described, it does not amount to a false gospel?
Nesan:
So let me,
Akin:
Steve Samuel, you first.
Nesan:
Thank you. Thanks, Jimmy. Yeah, that is always before Anglican anyway. Well, sorry I couldn’t help it, but yeah, let’s go for the first question. The first question is, sorry, I lost. The first question is,
Akin:
Okay, first question is, yeah, would you agree that at least for most people, something, I’m not saying it takes time or what it involves, but something needs to happen where God gives the person whatever’s lacking in their experiential righteousness to complete their sanctification?
Nesan:
Absolutely not. I reject that because do you what takes place? Yes, I do. Yes.
Akin:
What happens in your view?
Nesan:
Yes. So I’m pacing this off of Romans eight. Do you mind if I read it and I’ll read it real quick? Yes. So I’ll just explain it, save time. So in Romans eight, sorry, Romans seven, what Paul does is he talks about the struggle with the body and that even though he wants to do the good that he wants to do, but it’s the body of depth that he describes it, that is preventing him to do that and almost bringing about is a conflict with the body. What takes place at death that the body is taken away and the same Jesus, the same spirit, rather than raise Jesus from the dead in Romans eight is said to raise our bodies to the state of glorification. So to me, what takes place is death itself. This body is thrown away and I’m replaced with a glorified body that Christ had. Death to me is what, for example, complete. Complete enables me to reach complete sanctification.
Akin:
In that case. I have a follow-up question, and then I’ll turn to Steven. So it would seem that the position you just articulated would mean that our sin is due entirely to our physical body, because you said if our physical body goes away, then our spirits are pure. So it seems like you’re saying that our body is really the cause of all of our temptations, and without a body, every spirit will act perfectly. Is that your understanding?
Nesan:
No, not at all. Because the people in a disembodied state in Shao or hads that are still sinning in the awakeness. So I think that positionally, just to be clarify for the audience, positionally, we are sanctified by faith. That’s a done deal. But we’re talking about experientially, we’re not there yet. I believe that the putting away of the body, the same spirit that raised the body of raised Christ from the dead, gives us a glorified body that enables us to be glorified, that we are not tempted with the same way that we were in this body of death, as Paul describes it.
Akin:
Okay, so I want to make sure, if I understand correctly, so I die, my body goes away. Does God have to do anything to my soul at that point to make me experientially sanctified?
Nesan:
No.
Akin:
So I’m just automatically sanctified the moment my body goes away, God does nothing. In that case, it would seem like I’m not talking positionally, I’m talking experientially.
Nesan:
Yes. Experientially experiential. Yes.
Akin:
Okay. So in that case, it would seem like you’re saying our sinful nature is due only to our physical body, so that as soon as that drops out, we become experientially righteous perfectly. If that’s the case,
Nesan:
No, that’s
Akin:
Not what I’m saying. Okay. I’m not going to be able to chase this too many times. I’ve asked for several clarifications already. I understood you to be saying that you seem to agree at each step. No,
Nesan:
If I could, okay, go
Akin:
Ahead. One more time.
Nesan:
Yeah. So the reason you see the soul is tainted by sin because of my participation in Adam original sin, as well as my body. So it’s not just the body, it’s body and soul. Body, the soul. I’ve been made alive in Christ. I’m a new creature, but I’m still in a body of death. And so the temptations that I’m facing is through the body that the day that I die, that temptation is going away. I’m seeing him when we see him, we shall be as he is,
Horn:
Are the souls. Samuel are the souls of the damned tempted to sin after, but before the resurrection of the dead.
Nesan:
It entirely depends on whether they were sanctified before life, before death or not, for example. So not sanctified by the spirit in hell are still in Hades. Yeah, no. Yes. Still tempted. They’re still tempted because the soul hasn’t been made. Right.
Akin:
So in that case, it would seem that it is not simply the physical body that is the source of temptation. I really want to get to Steven’s view. Steven, would you agree that something needs to happen between death and heaven to make us and our spirits in particular perfectly righteous experientially? Yeah. I think that positionally, I agree with Samuel on this because there is an aspect where there’s more than just the body. We also are removed from the enemy’s temptation, the world’s temptation. So we have the removal of multiple temptations. I don’t think temptation is just simply from our sin nature. We have an outside and an inside temptation. Paul, in Romans seven is battling the internal temptation of his body, but that’s not the only enemy. Okay, so yes or no. I want to understand this. Does God do anything to our souls upon death to make them perfect? Let us see Jesus for example. Does that make us it’s transformation? Okay, yes, there’s a transformation. Then you’ve agreed to a version of the doctrine of purgatory. So would you say that people who agree to at least that much a purgatory are teaching a false gospel?
I don’t think they’re false gospels. I think they’re good. They’re good. That’s all I need. Samuel, would you say like Steven just did that God transforms us when we see Jesus to become like him. Would you say that that is something that is done by God to us when we see Jesus, he transforms us to be like him upon death. Would you agree to that? Okay. Then you’ve also, hang on, I have an answer also. I thought you said yes.
Nesan:
No, no, no, I did not. I said that it did entirely depend on what version of purgatory we’re talking about. If someone just believes there’s an intermediate state where something happens, that’s not a denial of the gospel, but if it rejects the finished work of Christ, then it might be, well,
Akin:
I’ve explained the sense of purgatory in which I’m using the term. I’m not importing any old theories from speculations of theologians.
Host:
Alright guys, that’s fine. Just
Akin:
What I’ve said. It sounds like we’re on the same page.
Host:
Alright, that’s time right there. Alright, so thank you guys for that cross-ex. Very, very fun to listen to. Very entertaining, very educational as well, and I appreciate the decorum between you guys as well. And so now what we’re going to do, we’re going to jump into this q and a. We’ve got a 15 minute q and a to wrap up this portion of the debate. So if I can get this thing off the screen here, if I could find it. There it is. Alright. Alright. So we’ve got some questions here. We have a super chat coming from faith Refine, and this question is for Jimmy. Thank you for the support faith you find appreciated. Jimmy, if we are not forgiven for future sins, must we be in a state of total repentance or perfect sanctification when we die?
Akin:
The Catholic understanding would be you need to be in fundamental repentance. You need to have love for God. That transcends love for any created thing. If I love ice cream more than I love God, that’s not saving faith. And we can have temptations that you could quibble about. Well, do you have total repentance? If you’re still tempted, you have the kind of repentance you need. By the way, could you put the question back up again? I want to make sure I address all the parts
Host:
Of it. Yeah, I’m just sending it and make sure it’s on this side here.
Akin:
Okay. So you need to have fundamental repentance that makes God your highest priority, but you don’t have to be perfect in terms of your sanctification when you die. That’s what the function of purgatory is. It’s just the final step of sanctification. If you’re not already completely purified, God will purify you by his mercy. And Pope Benedict actually understood purgatory as a transforming encounter with Christ where the fiery love of Christ burns away all of our impurities, leaving our souls as pure gold.
Host:
Alright, Trent, do you have anything to add? No. Alright. Steven and Samuel, you also have an opportunity to respond to this question as well or something Jimmy said as well.
Nesan:
Well, I’ll let Steven take this one.
Boyce:
No, you can go to the next one.
Host:
The next one. All right, copy that. All right, so we have a question coming from, all right, so thanks officer little play on words there. Alright, question for the Protestants. If repentance or confession are necessary for justification, how can you still say it is by faith alone? Doesn’t the word alone means something in is in isolation?
Nesan:
No, I think that this is the problem with sometimes the catchphrases that comes out of the solars and tulip. And so we use the words, I mean Steven and I had a three hour discussion on sola scriptura and it’s not that simple as just saying the Bible alone, there’s a little bit more to unpack that. So what I’ll say is this, when we say that we are saved by faith alone, we mean that faith is a gift of God. It is an initiative of God, it is monistic, not synergistic. And so yes, we need faith to be saved. Yes, we need repentance to be saved, but both faith and repentances have demonstrated is a gift of God both based on second Timothy two and Efficience two was eight to nine.
Boyce:
So we would say that genuine faith is not alone. That’s the issue with these alone statements. That’s why I don’t use ’em because they’re misleading in that regard. And this is an example of that where there’s a misunderstanding. So many of these terms get turned on each other on the reform side or on the Catholic side or on the Protestant side terms get works or faith well you’re depending on works, we’re depending on faith. You start throwing these catch phrases like this in there it gets confusing. We don’t believe faith alone stays alone. We believe that there’s an activity to that, that faith is active, that faith is moving. There’s more to it than just you assert something, which is what Jimmy was describing. It’s not just an intellectual faith. There’s something that’s more to it because it won’t stay alone once it is put into action.
Akin:
And I would agree with that. I think that this illustrates the difficulty with using these alone formulas because they’re inevitably more complex than the formula gives the impression when you start unpacking them. And so I would agree, I think that’s one reason why faith alone is not the language of the Bible and I think it’s wise of Catholics not to use that formula because it’s intrinsically misleading but nevertheless not to quarrel about words. We can agree with it, it can have a legitimate sense provided it’s understood correctly. So we’re in agreement on that.
Horn:
Yeah, I would say a problem I have with this, and you’re right, it’s often misunderstood because you could say, well justify by faith alone, good works are present. The works are not what justify, but they are a necessary evidential condition. If the works are not there, it would show one does not have saving faith. I think my problem is that the Bible doesn’t use the term saving faith, it only talks about faith. You quoted Luther saying faith cannot help doing good works constantly, but biblical language, it’s not faith that does works per se. It’s though it does reference faith working in charity really it’s the person who is faithful that does good works. And so this will lead to the question for Protestants to answer, okay, well the works don’t justify, but they still need to be there to show you are justified. What works are those? And I think that gets into a lot of thorny questions.
Host:
Alright. All right. Thank you guys. And we have another question here. Thank you for the question. Works considered to be works of the law or is it good deeds, charity and love? It doesn’t say who was two, but Jimmy and Trent, if you guys want to take this one first.
Akin:
So the term works that Paul uses has been understood differently. Sometimes it’s understood to refer specifically to actions done in order to fulfill the Mosaic law and sometimes it has been understood to be used to refer to just a good deed in the Catholic tradition. There have been advocates of both viewpoints that when Paul says he’s talking about when he says we’re saved by faith and not works, what he means is works of the mosaic law. Some others have said or added to that. And also we’re not saved by good deeds, we’re not justified by good deeds. We don’t do good deeds to get into a state of justification. They flow from the state of justification. So both options, both interpretations are available. My personal opinion is that if you study Romans and Galatians carefully, when Paul uses the phrase works and doesn’t add a clarifier to it, he almost invariably is talking about works of the Mosaic law like circumcision.
That’s his big test case. That’s why he brings, it’s not be kind to your neighbor, it’s circumcision. He’s talking almost exclusively about works of the mosaic law. When he wants to connote good works, he typically adds a qualifier to it like good. So in Ephesians two for example, he says you’re justified by grace and not by works meaning works of the Mosaic law. He’s just been talking about how Jews and Gentiles are united together in the church, but God created us in Christ for good works. So there’s a difference between the initial works he talks about without a qualifier and the good works he recommends for us. But it’s true either way you go. We don’t do works of the mosaic law to get into a state of justification and we don’t do good works to get into a state of justification. It’s a gift of God.
Host:
All right Steven. And
Nesan:
Yeah, I’ll just respond to that by saying that I don’t see, I have to respectfully disagree with my more esteemed interlocutor here, that there’s a distinction between good works, inefficient two and eight between verse nine and 10. And the reason I think they’re dealing with the same thing, of course I do realize that Paul May be alluding to the mosaic law earlier when he says it’s not by works because he does reference J and Gentile. But if you distinguish the two, then it doesn’t flow that we’re not saved by works, but that Paul goes on to say, God created us for good works. There must be some sort of synonym between the works in the first case and the second.
Host:
Alright. All right. Steven or Trent?
Horn:
Yeah, and I would just disagree. I would say that Paul is contrasting, he’s noting that there are works of the law or works of Torah. It might be another way to look at it somehow. Romans two six uses the Greek word works, but it’s just talking about gobble will reward glory and immortality to those who do good works. In Ephesians two, it’s not just before verses eight, it’s also verses 11 through 14 and verses 11 through 15 talks about how they’ve broken down the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in his flesh. The law of commandments and ordinances I would say there that we are talking about it is not works of Torah that bring you into the covenant as they once did maybe in the past. So there’s a distinction made between the Jew and Greek distinction and the necessity of the mosaic law. But Paul is very clear though that through God’s grace he did make good works for us to do.
Host:
Yeah,
Boyce:
I would say that the good works are a product of the faith. They don’t proceed, they follow, but he also in other places, like in Titus says it’s not by works of righteousness rather than using good works or terms like that that we have done. But according to mercy, he saved us. So there’s also an aspect to where I think if we get lost in the word works here too much, whether it’s mosaic obedience because that would be a dependence on mosaic law over against the gospel of Christ and its message by faith. And then also self-produced good deeds because at the end of the day, almost all good deeds that are produced by works can be found somewhere in the moral law or even in the neighborly laws that you find in the Levitical stance. So at the end of the day, I don’t know if we can separate those two things. They all end up finding themselves back in Torah anyway, we’re defining the character of God because that’s all the law is to begin with is God character put on display. The only part we could really separate that from is ceremonial laws or perhaps sacrificial laws, but when it comes to the moral law of God is just repackaged and revealed in a much bigger, more dynamic way by Jesus in the gospel teachings. So I don’t know if I would get lost in the terms here.
Horn:
I think the importance is just that there is no work that initially justifies there is no good work that initially justifies and the only kind of work that can end justification would be a gravely evil work that constitutes rejecting God.
Akin:
And just to chime in, that’s why I said both views can be taken by Catholics in how to read these passages. This is not a point that needs to divide us.
Host:
Alright. Alright. Alright guys, let’s go to the next question here. We got a super chat and this is for the Protestants. Thank you Logan for the support, Protestants, church fathers, John chapter five, verse 28, 29 as evidence that one will be judged by their works and therefore one could lose salvation. Are the fathers wrong when they interpret the passage this way?
Nesan:
Well, two questions I have. Number one, which fathers because you can’t just say, well, father said so Father must be always right. It doesn’t work that way. So which Father said, so what was the context they were speaking in? Sometimes when a person says something, if you look through the context, so it talks about face specific context to that, which is why he’s using the word in that. So you need to define which father is saying this, where he’s saying this. And yes, I don’t think, and maybe Jimmy or Trent can correct me here, I don’t think Catholics believe in the infallibility of the fathers either and needed to Protestants. So yes, they can be wrong, but it all depends. And I love what Jimmy said at the start of this discussion that is we should not qua all over words. We should have a meaningful discussion over substance.
Boyce:
And with John chapter five, I mean he explicitly states earlier in the passage that whoever believes in him who sent me has eternal life. There’s a present eternal life in that person. So again, there’s a lot of context that precedes this idea in of itself. And then he also talks about the process of life being given that’s from the father and in the son granted to him and then is now bestowed into us. So we are partaking of not an inactive life. So yes, there’s a rejection not only of Christ and his teachings, his word and his life-giving source, that alone is enough to judge a person. But in the text here he is speaking about faith that precedes this aspect as well and a rejection of Christ or a belief in Christ. So again, we would say on our end of this passage doesn’t disprove our position of justification because even faith is implied here that gives somebody eternal life in Christ in the present case by believing the message in the work of Christ. But the rejection of it is just a continuation of the works that they’re going to be judged with because it is an evil work to even reject Christ himself.
Akin:
Oftentimes Calvinists will point to various passages early on in the gospel of John and kind of take them in isolation as if they proved that it’s impossible to lose salvation. Frequently it’ll be neglected. When Jesus says those who come to me, he uses the present tense, which when it is used in Greek often conveys the idea of it keeps happening. Someone who keeps coming to me, I’m never going to cast out. But he doesn’t eliminate the possibility you could stop coming to him and then get cast out. What I think cinch is the case though is John 15 because in John 15 Jesus tells the disciples, he commands them remain in me and he says, if you don’t remain in me, then you’re going to be like a branch that is taken from the vine and gathered and burned. So he’s envisioning damnation for those who don’t remain in him and he tells them how to remain in him. He says, keep my commandments and this is my commandment. Love each other. So if one were to not love each other, then as John says in one of his epistles, you’re still in death. You would’ve. But one way or another, the command that Jesus gives tells us it is possible to commit new sins that can even cost to your salvation. So I think we need to read John’s gospel taking all of these passages together instead of just isolating individual ones.
Boyce:
Alright Marla, can I add something to that? Yeah, go ahead. Going back to verse 24 of that chapter, the one who has eternal life, he does not come into judgment but has passed from death to life. There is a transformation that is there and the word not is or not comes, is indicative. It’s not a subjunctive verb here. So there is a definitive action that has taken place both in the transformation and the passing of what will not happen, what will happen.
Akin:
Okay, I’m going to need to respond to that.
Boyce:
Sure.
Akin:
So you’re introducing a grammatical point and it goes, the mere presence of the indicative mood does not do this. The indicative mood is not used to refer to definitive irreversible actions. The relevant verb is passed, he’s passed from death to life, but passing does not mean an irreversible action. I can pass from Arkansas to California for a work trip and then I can pass back from California to Arkansas to go home. So if one passes from death to life, he can by repenting pass from life to death, which is the point of the parable of the prodigal son where the son leaves the father and goes and lives a life of dissipation. And the father says, my son is dead, he’s become spiritually dead.
Horn:
Yeah, I would say that that’s reading too much in the indicative. The passage doesn’t say he will not come into judgment, it just says he does not. I worry, but I share Jimmy’s concern about overreading it.
Host:
Alright.
Nesan:
Yeah, I just want to add, oh okay.
Host:
Yeah, yeah, go ahead Sam. Last response and then we’ll move on to the final question before we the transition to the next round.
Nesan:
Yeah, I disagree with the understanding of eternal life. I think life eternal means it’s eternal. If it can be terminated, it was never eternal to begin with. That’s the whole point of the use of the word eternal. And I think with all due respect, Jimmy, I think the analogy of moving from Arkansas to Texas, so the state that you mentioned is not analogous to the moving from life to death and death to life and life to death. I just simply struggle to see how that is in any way comparable to that. Yeah.
Host:
Alright. Alright. Alright guys, that’s a been a final question that we’ll transition here. Thank you for the support John. Appreciate it. After Roman Catholic Church says it’s absolutely necessary for salvation that every creature submit to the Roman pontiff. What happens to justification of a Christian who willingly refuses to submit
Akin:
The Catholic church’s understanding is that God only holds people accountable for what they know to be true. And so if someone doesn’t realize they need to be Catholic, God will only hold them accountable for the truth and the light that they have in their lives. So consequently, if someone, let’s say they grew up Protestant and they heard a bunch of bad stuff about the Pope and they heard a bunch of bad stuff about the Catholic church and so they never became Catholic, well, God’s not going to hold them accountable for what they were innocently unaware of. And what he will hold them accountable for is what they did know. So if they, for example, knew that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind and they refuse to embrace Jesus, well then that would cost them their salvation. Or even if they embrace Jesus, if they then decide to go on a murder spree and they’re not under some mental disease or something, they just voluntarily decide to become a serial killer, well that’s going to cost them their salvation too because they were responsible for their actions. But if the church understands, and you can read the catechism of the Catholic church on this point, for example, it’s in proximity to paragraph 8 44. You can also read the second Vatican Council document Lumen Genium that deals with this. It’s around paragraphs 15 and 16 where it acknowledges that it’s possible for people who aren’t aware of the truth of the Catholic church, who don’t act on it to be saved as long as they otherwise respond to the grace and truth that they’re aware of.
Horn:
I’ll add one thing on it and get the other two gentlemen’s responses. I do think that there is a parallel here that Protestants still have to account for. So Hebrews 1317 says, obey your leaders and submit to them. I think there are many Protestants who would say, and I’m curious to see what you two think. Who would say that one of the good works that is necessary to show you have saving faith is belonging to at least a church. I’ve known Protestant friends who have gone to Bible studies but they never joined a church. They didn’t see any biblical reason that they had to do that. And I’ve met them, I know people like this. So I would say then if it is a mark of saving faith, you have to belong to a church and submit to the elders there. Otherwise you don’t really have saving faith. Then that raises it up to the question, well which elders are we supposed to submit to and gets us closer back to this particular obligation in the Catholic faith?
Nesan:
Alright, before Steven jumps in on this, I need to say Steven and we’ve been having a lot of private conversations just about this point and so maybe Steven, you want to just start us out first and Yeah, go for it.
Boyce:
So this is a huge reason why I believe there has to be a bishop root. I don’t want to speak for all Protestants because I can’t because not all Protestants holders,
Horn:
Nobody can.
Boyce:
Yeah. So I think it is dangerous. Salvation is instituted within Christ who his body is a part of the activity of his church to remove yourself from the church and it’s authority that Christ has instituted there. I have a hard time, I struggle with that person and when it comes to salvation because how can you love Christ yet his body is the church and his authority is given to his apostles, which they gave to their successors. How can you love but not the fullness of the institution in which he has given himself. I really, really struggle these people that want to have private outside of the church congregational Bible studies and call that church, you’re not in a church, it’s not a church. A church has organization, a church has ordained leadership and that ordained leadership is through succession. That is why I moved to Anglicanism to begin with because I think this is an important point. Now the Roman pontiff, we differ on that. I don’t necessarily hold to the papacy the way they do, although we’re not against we in Anglicanism. A lot of us are not against giving credence and admonition to the Bishop of Rome. They were always seen that way by many of the other apostolic churches to the sea of Peter. And we have no problem with that from that perspective. And neither was Luther for that matter. He was not fully against the Pope so long as there was better accountability.
Horn:
But it seems like you could take that you in particular could take that passage and say take out, swap up Roman ponti and put submit to the ordained authority. Something like that. You could just put something else there.
Boyce:
Bishops and priests.
Host:
Okay. Alright guys, we’re going to have to transition now. We’re going to begin part two of this debate. And so we are going to jump into, let me make sure I got the correct topic here. It says, what did the early church believe about justification? And this will be Trent and Dr. Steven Boyce presenting the opening statements. And once again, Dr. Boyce, you’ll be presenting first here if you want to pull up your PowerPoint.
Boyce:
I’m going to try. I really am.
Host:
So you got it the first try. Look at you. There you go.
Boyce:
Did I really?
Host:
Yeah, you got to hit the button. Hit that. There you go. Look at you man. You’re a techie now. You’re a techie now, man. Wow.
Boyce:
See? Think Jimmy was the expert off camera and now I’m the one that’s on camera, so usually it works the other way around, so I got lucky this time. So alright. And before you start my time, before we start my time, Marlon, I just want to say we really appreciate Trent and Jimmy. We have a lot of respect for them and we’re thankful for the debate and discussion. We will have points of contention, but we want everyone to know it is a mutual respect and we do benefit from a lot of the stuff that they put out there. So just wanted to make that clear as well.
Host:
Excellent, excellent. Alright. Alright. I’ll start your time as soon as you begin to speak.
Boyce:
Alright, well let’s talk about justification. In the early church when we use the term justification, I believe that we have limited its meaning and I think we’ve wrongly defined justification as just being justified before God and God only. Yes, the pinnacle of our standing before God is of the highest importance, but the implications of that are farther reaching. When looking at scripture and history, we can see that justification is defined from three different viewpoints that I’m going to demonstrate one justification before God, two justification before ourselves and three justification before others. And I’ve demonstrated that on the triangle there and I will explain each of these. And the reason I say that is because the term justified is not limited to the viewpoint of being justified before God only. In fact, Paul uses the term one Timothy three 16 that says that Christ was justified in the Spirit.
Now therefore the term cannot only have the idea of justifying somebody as making them righteous who was not because Jesus was the perfect son of God who did not need righteousness imputed to him. But the idea could also carry the institution of validation or vindication of a proclamation that was sentenced on somebody beforehand. Let me demonstrate this. In the pattern ministry of Jesus, when we look at Jesus, he said that his works bore witness about him that the father had sent him. He said, the very works that I do, bear witness to me, and he says this throughout specifically John’s gospel that they testify of him even says, if you don’t believe me, believe the works that I do, they demonstrated and validated something about him. The work that he did through the spirit of the Paul speaking of here validated him and his proclamation from the Father.
His works did not earn him sonship but revealed to others. He was already the son. His works validate and justified him before men that what the father proclaimed about him at his baptism was already confirmed. This is my beloved son whom I’m well pleased. Jesus being the perfect son of God, didn’t need righteousness imputed to him. It is clear that Paul was using this term in light of validating Christ’s already established position with the Father. So let’s break this down and how that relates to us who are sinners and do need the imputation of Christ. How does one become justified before God? Scripture teaches just as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness, which has been dealt with multiple times. In the last hour or so, Clement of Rome echoes this, one of the first bishops of Rome, whoever will candidly consider each particular will recognize the greatness of the gifts that were given to him being Abraham in connection to Genesis 15, thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven all these therefore, and he goes through a whole list of the kings, the Levites, the priest, the whole institution of the prophets was benefited by the faith of Abraham because of that, all these therefore were highly honored and made great not for their own sake or for their own works or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of his will, we too being called by his will in Christ Jesus are not justified by ourselves nor by our own wisdom understanding godliness or works which we have rotten a holiness of heart, but by the faith which through from the beginning almighty God has justified all men.
So all men are justified, made righteous, imputed righteous by faith that is instituted both in scripture and Clement of Rome. So in this, Abraham was justified before God when he believed the promise. It should be pointed out here that what took place beforehand is that he tasted the heavenly gifts of the bread and the wine from the mysterious priest, king Melek just prior to. And so therefore we see a full demonstration of Ephesians two. For by grace you saved through faith, he was given a precursor of grace through what would be instituted as a sacrament through Eucharist, by being given the body and blood through bread and wine by Mel Ek Grace was given to Abraham and faith followed and as a result of faith, we see him justify himself in other ways, not just before God, but also before himself. Abraham validated himself before God by offering his son as a sacrifice, by demonstrating he truly feared God and understood that dynamic of the ultimate sacrifice of the lamb.
That’s why he said God will provide a lamb. That’s why he demonstrates belief that God will give him his son back even in sacrifice to the point of resurrection. It was accurate therefore for James to say of Abraham, he was justified by works because works quote completed his faith. So the justification of works was that the works demonstrated to Abraham, he truly was living out this faith. Clement of Rome even builds into this idea. In the same letter in one Clement said that he obediently offered him being Isaac as a sacrifice of God on one of the hills. So in his faith it led him to obey. There was a following of his faith that demonstrated genuine completeness and finality to what he believed all along it proved himself to God. Abraham lived out his covenant with God through circumcision. We see other illustrations of this circumcision, I believe later being replaced through the covenant of baptism to the end of his life.
He demonstrated that he understood the significance of future sacraments. Again, not fully, but the precursors as shown by the bread and the wine from Melek as well as the sacrament and the covenant keeping through circumcision in the sacraments. So why sacraments? Sacraments validate ourselves before God, since they are a means of grace, we put ourselves in a position where grace in sacraments can work in and through us because sacraments do not benefit others. They benefit the individual who partakes. I can’t take char for someone else. I can’t be baptized on behalf of somebody else. It validates my personal relationship with God. He has declared me righteousness by faith. The sacraments are setting me apart to God through grace to confess sin. When I sin to be abiding in Christ by taking a Eucharist to be washed in baptism, et cetera. These are personal sanctifying moments where grace is instilled in me in this life where I need them in order to live out the next portion that is in sacrament.
Now, sacrament itself can’t save us in the sense of justification by faith in the top of the pyramid only sanctify us at the bottom of the pyramid. Here’s the reason I say that. When we look at texts, for example, like the EINs, which could be anywhere from sixth to ninth century, they say of Abraham and James 2 23, Abraham is an image of someone who is justified by faith alone. He does use the word term alone here since what he believed was credited him as righteousness, but he doesn’t leave faith alone alone. He actually goes and say, but he is also keyword approved because of his works since he off heard his son Isaac on the altar, of course he did not do this work by itself because faith isn’t alone and works aren’t alone in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith. So the works are a result of his faith.
They’re living out of that faith. They’re not separate, they’re not proceeding. Faith comes first, works are attached and anchored out of that faith. And the reason I say sacraments play into this that they can’t do what faith does is because sacraments can’t justify us before God. They can only justify us before ourselves and others and that many who partook of these sacraments apostatize. Like in one Corinthians 10, they were baptized in the baptism of Moses. They ate spiritual food and they drank the spiritual drink of Christ from the rock yet destroyed in the wilderness. Lest we believe this has implied to us in the new covenant, Hebrew six warns us that we can be enlightened. And as early as Justin martyr the interpretation, even the pita and translations of the ancient times demonstrate that the word enlightened here means to be baptized. Taste of the heavenly gift.
Many have interpreted to be the Eucharist still end up falling away and cannot be restored to repentance. There is no return for them. That is why the writer of Hebrews began with the words that the foundation of one of repentance and faith is toward God. The foundation is on repentance and faith and then to walk away from that could actually result in no return. So we see justification before God that’s by faith and specifically being imputed righteous unto them. We see sacrificing and all that Abraham did demonstrated and validated that faith to himself, but it also did something more than that. It also justified himself before others. Abraham also validated himself before others by act of sacrifice and was given later, after his lifetime, the term friend of God. This is what others put on him. Clement says, who whosoever will candidly consider each particular will recognize the greatness of the gifts that were given to him because of his faith and hospitality.
A son was granted to him in his old age and he obediently offered him as a sacrifice to God. So his hospitality, I love how Clement highlights that the acts of love and charity validate or justify us before men love for God and love for others. The Apostle John said, little children let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous as he is righteous. John later describes righteous living in this chapter by charity towards other validating righteous, standing before God to be genuine. Therefore, the righteous acts are from somebody who has already made righteous.
Host:
Alright, Steven, thank you so much for that opening. Appreciate it. Alright Trent, you’re now up for your 10 minute opening and if you want to share your screen,
Speaker 7:
Let’s see. Hold on.
Host:
Alright,
Speaker 7:
Let me get this and do my,
Horn:
Alrighty. You see my screen and hear me just fine?
Host:
Yes sir, we can.
Horn:
Alright, great.
Host:
Alright, I’ll start your time as soon as you begin to speak.
Speaker 7:
Alrighty. Okay.
Horn:
Alright. So I worry we might be talking a little bit past each other. Hopefully that’ll be remedied because this part we were going to talk about what does the early church think about justification? So that’s what I was planning to address and what we had agreed to address so the early Christians would agree with Protestants. So it makes us right with God is faith in Jesus Christ. However, the early church understanding of how faith in Christ saves us, it differs from many Protestant models. So the 20th century Calvinist author Lorraine Ner says of the church fathers, they of course taught that salvation was through Christ. Yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Part of rejecting the gospel meant a Christian was capable of doing bad works that failed to uphold the moral law, the law of Christ. As Galatians six, two puts it.
So Matthew Thomas is shown in his book, Paul’s works of the law and the perspective of second century reception that the early church did not recognize the Pauline phrase works of the law to refer to any good deed that conformed to the moral law. In fact, John Calvin did not cite any church father in his commentary on Romans three who held to his view of what works of the law were he also notes that John Christ Origen and Jerome believe the expression not be understood as including all works. So the early church rejected the claim that one had to do the good work of becoming a Jew before he could become a Christian. But they did not believe works had nothing to do with our justification. Indeed the Dutch reformed theologian Lewis Burko writes the writings of the early church fathers contain very little respecting the doctrine of sanctification.
A strain of moralism is quite apparent in that man was taught to depend for salvation on faith and good works. For example, Clement of Rome says we are not justified by ourselves, which is true since salvation is a gift from God. We do nothing to initially enter into justification. But he also says, blessed are we beloved if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love. That so through love, our sins may be forgiven us for is written blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Scholar Kerry Newman summarizes Clement saying, Clement understood good works as the means to maintain salvation. We should also be skeptical of the claim that the early church held the Protestant theories of justification by faith alone. Because as Protestant historians admit, the early church did not use the language of justification in its discussions about what saves us in Alistair McGrath’s book, who’s to See a Day A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification.
This is by one of the most comprehensive books on the subject. It’s over 500 pages long, but it spends less than 10 pages on how justification was understood before St. Augustine McGrath writes, early Christian writers did not choose to express their soteriological convictions primarily in terms of the concept of justification. We should allow the early Christians to speak for themselves instead of trying to shoehorn their views into a later theological paradigm that contradicts the essence of what they believed. We should also remember that the early church includes a broad collection of church fathers as well as ecclesial writers. Catholic doctrine does not rely on the fathers unanimously holding a certain view or articulating a doctrine with specific vocabulary. Vocabulary since the church’s understanding of God’s revelation develops over time. However, there are some basic doctrines related to what makes us right with God that are universal among the church fathers.
So first the church unanimously held that baptism is the initial means by which we become right with God or saved from our sins. According to the Protestant scholar j and d Kelly from the beginning, baptism was the universally accepted right of admission to the church as regards to significance. It was always held to convey the remission of sins. The Protestant apologist William Webster likewise admits that the doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers. Second, the early church fathers unanimously agreed that the gift of justification could be lost through bad works like grave evils. Y said Those who do not obey him being disinherited by have ceased to be his sons wherefore they cannot receive his inheritance. Ian writes, for do not many afterward, fall out of grace is not this gift taken away from many and the absol constitutions teach that he whose sins after his baptism, unless he repent and forsake his sins, shall be condemned to hell fire.
So this contradicts free grace apology which says no evil work could ever cause you to lose your salvation. And it also contradicts the doctrine of eternal security, which says the elect cannot permanently lose salvation. That view assumes that all permanent apostates were never truly saved in the first place. So those who defend free grace theology admit it was not known in the early church. Wilkin writes, the first generation after the apostles distorted the good news which the apostles had entrusted to their care. The reformers looked back to Christ and the apostles rather than the church fathers for their view of salvific repentance and the gospel. So Wilkin is a free grace theologian and other free grace theologians point out that eternal security, the competing view is just as un historical. Kenneth Yates writes, the gospel is understood by Lordship. Salvation proponents is not found in the extent writings of the early church.
Peter Lilach, the president of the Protestant Westminster Seminary writes, the evidence is clear eternal security was not a doctrine that was carefully considered by the uninspired founding fathers of our Christian tradition. It is hard to believe, but in over 5,000 pages of the anti-icing writings, John three 16 is only cited twice. There are elements of the church fathers that can be viewed as moving away from grace toward what NT Wright has termed in early Catholicism. The early church also believed that in order to be made right with God after committing grave sin, one had to formally reconcile with the church through the confession of sin. The dedication says in your gatherings, confess your transgressions and do not come for prayer with a guilty conscience. The New Testament scholar, David Rens Berger, cites the Diday along with passages in Mark Acts and James to show that confession of sin as generally public Saint Cyprian in the third century writes, let each one confess his sin.
I beseech you brethren, while he who is sinned is still in this world, while his confession can be admitted, while the satisfaction and remission affected through the priest is pleasing with the Lord. So that’s in the third century. As I noted earlier, the early church did not generally use the language of justification when describing what makes us right with God. However, they did believe baptism was what first makes us right with God and that it was possible to do bad works that could cause one to lose this saving relationship with God. If someone committed such a bad work, then he needed to formally reconcile with God through the church. St. Ambrose puts it well, he said the office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit and his right. It is specially to forgive and to retain sins. Why do you baptize? Sins cannot be remitted by man if baptism is certainly the remission of all sins.
What difference does it make whether priests claim that this power is given to them in penance or at the font he calls each blessed both him whose sins are remitted by the baptismal font and him whose sin is covered by good works. Now we might discuss later different, you can find in the fathers them using phrases like faith alone for example. And as Jimmy referenced earlier, Catholics use that language too. So just because a father uses the language of faith alone, it doesn’t mean he believed in the Protestant doctrine of soia. I’ll give you a test case of that. Alright, here’s a mystery quote. This is from a writer in the early church. God justifies by faith alone and because they thought that they were righteous by works of the law they did not keep, they refuse to submit themselves to the forgiveness of sins.
Now that sounds like it could come from Martin Luther, but it actually comes from Palis, the heretic palis. Well, there’s debate about exactly what Palis believed, but he is the poster boy for many people for workspace salvation. So don’t think that every citation of faith alone in the fathers is equivalent to the Protestant notion of sofie. Indeed, we see the fathers on multiple occasions literally church rejecting this kind of view. So Clement of Alexandria, he writes, your faith has saved you, your faith has saved you. We do not understand him to say absolutely that those who have believed in any way, whatever shall be saved unless also works, follow and the fathers don’t act like works automatically. Follow from saving faith is something we must choose to do. John Christ said he that believes not the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
Yet not even from this, do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation and the directions for living given in many places of the gospels show this. So not even from this, do we assert faith alone is sufficient for salvation. This includes also having to do things that are obligatory. So Ignatius of Antioch 1 0 7 speaks about how the breaking the bread, the Eucharist, you must obey the bishop and the presbytery and that the Eucharist is the medicine of immortality, the antidote to prevent us from dying. So one who is not in community with the bishop, one who does not receive the Eucharist, does not have this antidote that leaves one from dying. The Protestant Thomas Torrance said to this passage, we are thus far from a New Testament doctrine of grace. We are in fact, well on the way to the Roman Catholic view. I disagree with Torrance’s assessment that this is a contradiction. The Catholic view is the New Testament view. The catechism paragraph 2010 says, no one can merit the initial grace of justification through baptism, but one can demerit lose that grace through grave sin. This loss can be permanent if the person does not reconcile with Christ through the church he established. And this is the view we find among the early Christians. Thank you.
Host:
Thank you Trent for that presentation. Thank you also, Dr. Boy, for that presentation. Now we’re going to jump into our rebuttal round and we’ll be going with minute rebuttals and I’ll start your five minutes when you begin to speak Dr. Steven.
Boyce:
Yeah, just to be clear, I am using early church lingo into the New Testament, specifically focusing on not so many of the church fathers as Trent had mentioned. Because when you bring all the fathers in, you have kind of a different consensus of terminology. I chose to use those in the early part like Clement and even writings that are by the ECU demonstrating specifically Abraham. And that there are three elements to justification. Justification before God, justification that identifies ourselves, validates ourselves, and then a validation to others. And I demonstrated that through Clement and through these other documents also that there is a true statement what was said by trend, that when you look at some of these individuals, McGrath mentioned the justification understood before Augustine cannot be inserted upon terminology we are using today. I agree with that to a level in fact, that’s why I think we have to be careful and that’s why I stated in my very first line that we have wrongly applied justification to a singular thing that it is expressed in more than one way, but how our statuses before God was not really a point of debate.
For example, Mathes in writing the letter to Dus, an unknown writer that has been called disciple of the Lord. He talks about justification. In fact he says, and what other was it possible that the wicked and the ungodly could be justified? Dco Thae, he uses the hes definitive passive. Same exact tense that Paul used in Galatians two 16 and 17, which does speak to the faith aspect here. Then he goes into describe it. That can only be given by the son of God through a sweet exchange. There’s a substitutionary change. Oh unsearchable Operation O benefits surpassing all expectation that the wickedness of many should be hidden to a single righteous one and that the righteous one should justify many transgressors. And my point when making is our justification before God being made righteous is a one-time act of faith. But that act of faith is not alone.
It transcends into many of the things that Trent demonstrated in his presentation. Many church fathers attest to, it goes right into sacraments. It’s not without ’em, it’s with ’em. They lead to them. This work of faith and repentance that happens before God will not stay at a mountaintop experience. It will transcend to other planes and the plane of sacraments being connected to him and identified in him through baptism and the washing and regeneration by being in the abiding process of taking the body and blood of Christ by experiencing relationship, by confessing and forsaking sin and seeking absolution. These things are necessitated for a person who’s living not a life that once was a faith, but is living a life of active faith. And it will continue to validate that relationship as he partakes in the sacraments within himself. As a result of taking of the grace of sacraments, the sacraments of grace will not leave you there either.
There will be a next move. The next move is once you’ve experienced a grace of God and sacraments, you will not contain that within yourself and leave it to yourself in isolation. It will spill into the acts of love and charity. This is what Clement was referring to in One Clement 50 when he talks about love in the sense of justifying because it is justifying and demonstrating a validation. This is why I made the point. Paul uses the word justification as well. This is why I agree with McGrath. We cannot limit it to just being made righteous before God. Because even in the early patristics we find them using the term in sense of also validating and already proclamation over an individual. A person who’s been justified by faith will live out that faith through works. We see that in Abraham and as a result will love others. That’s why I loved how Clement demonstrated about Abraham, that he loved his hospitality was demonstrated in his life and it is people that gave him the label, the friend of God because of the way he lived out his faith continually validating it, confirming it, and it’s one connected, beautiful, harmonized system. Not three separate things. One will lead to the other, which will lead to the other, and I believe they’re connected and cannot be reversed.
Host:
Alright, thank you Dr. Steve voice for that rebuttal. Alright, Trent, you’re up for your 500 rebuttal and I’ll start your time as soon as you begin to speak.
Horn:
Okay, hold. Lemme just check to make sure. All right, you can see and hear me just fine.
Host:
Alright. Yes we can.
Horn:
Alright. So remember what we’re discussing. We talked about the biblical part here. We’re wondering what does the early church think about justification? And a notice though that Dr. Boyce really, he only focused on two, well, three writers, oy Canus in the early middle Ages, and then Clement Ron and the Epistle Dus. As I said before, even if all those three sources held the soul offi day, that really wouldn’t give us a determinative view of what the early church thought about justification or salvation. We need to do a wider survey, and that’s something that I did in my opening, but I want to go through some of the things that he brought up. So the epistle of dus, I think that many Protestants read in here about the sweet exchange and make an assumption that this relates to sofie. This relates to only to imputed righteousness.
However, faith is only mentioned four times in the letter. The letter never talks about salvation occurring through faith in Christ. The Protestant scholar Michael Bird says, of the epistle, DUS imputed righteousness at best is a possible corollary of the text, not part of its content. So I think the big disagreement here is that yes, God can impute righteousness to us, he can declare us righteous. That also transforms us capable to do good works, but the works do not automatically flow from the faith. We are capable of doing the works, but we still retain a free will to choose to not do them or choose to reject God later. A good example of this would be the parable, the unforgiving servant, the servant’s debt is forgiven. He’s capable now of being generous to others. He rejects that the debt is then reinstated and Matthew 18. So talking about Abraham, so I guess we can talk about the Bible a little bit.
That’s fine. It’s always a good thing. A few problems with Dr. Boyce was mentioning with Abraham in justification. Abraham first he was justified years before God made a covenant with him. In Genesis 15 when Abraham answered God’s call to follow him in a strange land in Genesis 12, because Hebrews 11, eight says, Abraham did that work through a faith that men of old received divine approval. So he believed God. He was initially justified by faith and he chose to obey God and was approved because of that. And still, I think the important point to remember here as NT Wrightwood says, talking about Romans four, Wright says that Paul is ruling out any suggestion Abraham might’ve been just the sort of person God is looking for. Abraham had nothing to boast about. Just as I and Jimmy, no one has anything to boast for our initial justification.
We just receive that gift from God, but we can choose to reject it later and reject through our own demerits. Genesis 22, 5. The idea that, well, it’s just justification before others. Well, Abraham and Isaac go away from the servants to do the sacrifice. There’s nothing in the text that shows that the reformed Protestant scholar, Thomas Shriner writes, there is no evidence that justification here in Genesis 22 relates to justification before people rather than God. When James uses the word save and justify, he has in mind one’s relationship with God. So when it comes to Clement, that’s perfectly incompatible with the Catholic view that Clement is saying, just like all these other people in the Old Testament, they became righteous. God chose them, not because they were special great people, but he chose them. God can freely choose who he will. We have nothing to boast about entering into a covenant with God.
He chooses us however we can choose to reject God in one Clement 35 Clement Praise let us earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for him in order that we may share in his promised gifts. The scholar, Carrie Newman, I referenced earlier says in one Clement, one gets in by faith, but one stays in through works. You don’t do good works. Oh, I need to pray enough rosaries to be saved. Catholics don’t believe that. We just believe that you can choose to reject God by committing a grave, evil or failing to do an obligation God has given us for protestants even say getting baptized or receiving the Eucharist. I have a little bit of time here, so I’m just going to say something else about the early fathers. You go through them, they’re pretty unanimous, especially when you get to the third century on very explicit about our salvation requiring reception of the Eucharist.
The mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, confession of sins to a priest being purified and purgatory. So if we try to say the father is held to a Protestant view of faith alone and they also held to these Catholic views, either the Catholic views don’t contradict faith alone. So Protestants don’t really have that much of a reason to not be Catholic anymore or it could be the case these later fathers talk about justification by faith, they’re talking about that which initiates us into living right with God and the other things we can do or fail to do that can damage or rupture that relationship. So there’s a lot more that we could discuss and I look forward to talking about that in our cross-examination.
Host:
Alright, thank you guys both for your opening and your rebuttal. And so now that’s what we’re headed to the cross-examination. Sam, you there, Sam? You all know you had an option to cut the camera off, but Sam, if you’re there, you want to get your camera back up. We got the cross X next, but this is going to once again be cross x 15 minute cross-examination. If you can answer your opponent’s question one minute with some of the yes or no, please do that. Don’t want to bog your opponent’s time down. So that said, it’d be Steven, he’ll be cross-examining Trent and Jimmy
Boyce:
Trent, you made a comment here in relation to James chapter two that I want to make sure I understood you. Are you saying that James two is talking about justification before God, not before people?
Horn:
Yeah. I was quoting what a Protestant scholar Thomas Shriner was speaking about what James is referring to when it comes to justification.
Boyce:
What is your view?
Horn:
My view that Abraham’s righteousness increased by obeying God and being willing to offer Abraham as a sacrifice. He did not enter into an initial state of justification by being obedient to God, but his justification, it increased because he was obedient to God because works also justifies us, not just faith alone.
Akin:
If I can point out real quick, this is a, because this is a common source of misunderstanding
Boyce:
In project I need a yes or no, I just need a yes or no, I just need a yes or no
Horn:
That it justifies him before God.
Boyce:
No. Does James two speak about justifying before God or people
Horn:
Mind? Well, that’s a broad question with the chapter, but I guess I would say before God though it does talk about other people looking at our faith.
Akin:
Sure.
Boyce:
Okay, Jimmy,
Akin:
One of the common misunderstandings that we find in this discussion is James two, where he talks about the justification of Abraham is often misunderstood as initial justification that is not the Catholic church’s understanding of what James is talking about. The only time that Trent ever cites this passage is in connection with growth in righteousness after one has initially come to God and been justified. So what James is not saying is that you need to do works in order to get justified. He’s talking about how one is further made righteous after initial justification by cooperating with God’s grace and doing acts of love.
Boyce:
So that goes back to my point in the pyramid I have there that justification is not limited to a singular point. It is actually justifying not only before God, but before man. Would you say that James two, when he says challenges them, show me your works. And he talks about how people named Abraham the friend of God, that this justification is not limited to being made right before God, but rather this is validating a right standing with God before man. Is that what James two is teaching?
Akin:
It is both. He is both being justified before God by growth and righteousness. And James also notes that if you can’t demonstrate the reality of your faith formed by charity, by good works, then you effectively don’t have good faith and you need to because James says, I’ll show you the legitimacy of my faith by my works. So there’s an aspect of both justification before God and justification before people.
Boyce:
Sorry,
Nesan:
Can I jump in real quick? Sorry. Go ahead, Steve.
Boyce:
Yeah, sorry. No, no, go ahead. Go ahead Samuel. You’re fine.
Nesan:
No, I just wanted to say, so we discussed in your opening statement, Jimmy, you gave three definitions of faith, right? And so which one do you think James is referring to in particular here in his definition of faith? I think you did mention in your opening statement,
Akin:
Yeah, when he says that faith does not justify, he’s talking about intellectual ascent alone when he says, I’ll show you my faith by my works. Of course he means acts of love for God and neighbor. He’s talking about formed faith.
Nesan:
Yes. And so yeah, I just want to clarify that, Steven, please go ahead.
Boyce:
Yes. So when we’re dealing with the discussion here, moving into Trent, you mentioned specifically the sacraments came up a few times. And again, I tried to not bring in too many church fathers because of what was said earlier. They’re such a broad, so I wanted just to keep it connected to the Abraham story in some of the early writings because 10 minutes is not a lot of time to cover the corpus of fathers. But when you’re looking at the discussion that you made about salvation, would you say that salvation itself is a gift?
Horn:
Yes.
Boyce:
Yep. Do you believe? Yeah.
Horn:
No one can merit the initial graces of justification. That’s why babies when they’re baptized, they’re saved as a gratuitous gift. They do nothing.
Boyce:
So if the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable, how does that fit into that framework where you can lose that position?
Horn:
Are you quoting what Paul says in Romans about the salvation of the Jewish people, that the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable? Is that what you’re alluding to?
Boyce:
Sure. Because I think specifically where he’s speaking in a, yes, there would be specifics there, but generally the gifts and callings of God, which would involve Abraham, would’ve not.
Horn:
Right. But that’s getting us into a slightly different topic than justification. That’s getting us into the question, what are the fate of those? While Christians are not justified by the old covenant, we’re justified by the new covenant. Paul is raising a separate question, how are Jews made right with God? If God made a promise to them, what will happen to them? And it’s not entirely clear what Paul’s answer is there, but he expresses a hope that in some way all Israel will be saved.
Akin:
Yeah. If I can jump in, when Paul articulates in Romans that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, he’s articulating a general principle that applies in a certain way to the Jewish people, but he obviously doesn’t mean that no gift of God or no calling of God is irrevocable because God gifted the Israelites with the land and then when they fell into idolatry, he took away that gift and they went into exile. Similarly, king Saul was initially given a calling to be God’s king over Israel, but when Saul fell into sin, he lost that calling and God replaced him with David. So Paul is not saying that no gift or no calling is irrevocable. He’s talking specifically about the kind of gift and calling that the Jewish people receive to proclaim the message of the one true God to the world. We can’t therefore draw inferences about things like salvation. He in fact, in the very same chapter in Romans 11, he says he warns the readers, the gentile readers, that if they don’t maintain faith, they will be cut off. And so obviously he doesn’t mean that no gift or calling is irrevocable because he acknowledges in the same chapter that if you lose faith, you will be cut off too
Horn:
If you don’t continue in God’s kindness. Romans 1122.
Boyce:
But in verse 30, going back to verse 29 and 30, he does tie that into us, not just Old Testament gifts and callings because he says you were also once disobedient liking the condition of these people in Rome, right? They’re in the same condition. So the question that follows in that he does bring the act of mercy of salvation into play here,
Akin:
Not just Old Testament gifts, it’s under gifts, it is under discussion. But the specific point he’s making when he talks about gifts and callings that are irrevocable has to do with the Jewish people as a whole entity. And Paul views the Jewish people as an entity as continuing to have this because there’s a faithful remnant that he talks about. But that doesn’t mean all Jews have irrevocability and irrevocable calls. In fact, he warns the gentile readers of the letter that you stand only by faith and if you lose faith, you will be cut off just like the branches who were cut off for their unbelief in Jesus. So while salvation is part of the discussion in this chapter, Paul is by no means saying you can’t lose salvation. In fact, he’s made the opposite point explicitly, you can lose it.
Boyce:
Let’s back up into this beforehand, going back to Abraham for example, you both admitted earlier when talking to Samuel, I believe that you believe that the things that were happening like say Mel Eck, these are precursors to what would be eucharistic language or maybe even baptismal and circumcision. I’m not sure your positions on that, but you see the precursors of these things. Now, Trent, your position on sacraments, you brought them up quite a few times in specifically in quotations. When you look at the sacraments themselves, what role do they play in justification?
Horn:
It depends on the sacrament. So the sacrament of baptism is the ordinary means that initially justifies us, but as Jimmy said, it’s not the absolute means because the church is long believed in the salvation of catechumenates who die before baptism, like if they’re martyred, bism is theism. Yeah, baptism or baptism of desire. Catechumenate who dies before receiving baptism. So baptism initiates, I would say the others in their relation to justification, they can strengthen us with virtues so that we can grow in holiness. But primarily the ones that would deal with justification would be baptism. If we lose the grace of justification, then the fact of confession is how we enter back into God’s friendship. We go to God, we repent and we believe repent, repent of our sins and the sacrament of the Eucharist would be a part of the obligation of the Christian life, that to be a person who is united Christ, one must still remain united to him and be obedient to him. When he said, take eat, this is my body, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you. And it also remits, venial, sins, things like that
Akin:
To say it concisely, the only two sacraments that put you in a state of justification or baptism, which puts you in initially and confession, which puts you in again, the other sacraments deal with what happens after you’re in a state of justification.
Boyce:
Now you both would agree that, go ahead. Go ahead, Samuel.
Nesan:
No, I just wanted to get this real quick because I think it’s just to backtrack with what you just said and go back to James two and try to connect the dots. Jimmy, you said that in James two, James is not dealing with fide forta or formative faith. He’s dealing specifically with an intellectual aspect of faith or an ascent. And so you also pointed out that Calvin was actually, when Calvin talks about faith alone, he’s actually has F forta in mind. And so on the basis of these two premises, does it not follow that the James tube does not contradict Calvin’s understanding of justification by faith?
Akin:
Yeah, I would agree, James, to at least I’d have to reread everything Calvin wrote on this subject, but my understanding is that it wouldn’t in terms of what we’ve discussed in the first passage where James refers to demons having intellectual faith in it, not saving them, Calvin would agree. Intellectual faith does not save in the second passage where James says, I’ll show you my faith by my works. He’s talking about formed faith. And Calvin would agree, that does save.
Nesan:
Yeah, that’s all. I just wanted to clarify that. Okay, go ahead Steven.
Boyce:
So going into Augustine, he talks about baptism working through vinal and mortal sins, and then he actually goes in specifically he was talking about infants there and the original sin that they have and not yet had commit the others. When you look at baptism as a removal, say it’s a person who has cumulated both mortal and al sins, when those are washed, from your perspective, why doesn’t there need to be a re baptism if there were mortal sins committed?
Akin:
Because we’re prohibited by divine law from applying baptism. Again, that’s where in Ephesians, Paul says there’s one faith, one hope, one baptism. You can only be validly baptized once. That’s why confession is the second plank after baptism because you can’t repeat baptism. So we need a second sacrament, which Christ authorized on the day of the resurrection.
Boyce:
But do you need more than one faith to get back in?
Akin:
No, you may not lose faith at all when you commit immortal sin. You may believe the Christian faith, it ceases to be justify in faith. You also do not, you need to reacquire faith, you need to repent and turn back
Boyce:
To that’s in
Akin:
The Christian faith. No, it’s one faith you’re embracing. Now you can if you wish, try to logic chop here and say, oh, well quire in faith you can reacquire faith in a way that you can’t redo baptism. That would be a difference between faith and baptism, but it doesn’t generate a logical contradiction.
Horn:
I would say Protestants have a similar issue to deal with that Protestants make a distinction between the kind of faith that you would manifest to begin salvation like receiving Christ as your Lord and Savior and that if you committed a grave sin in the Christian life, you don’t have to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Again, you just have to be reconciled with God. So because baptism is the one act that makes us children of God and gives us an indelible mark that cannot be undone, the ways to restore friendship with God will always be different after baptism than before.
Boyce:
But wouldn’t you say with that Trent, that most Protestants are not referring to the first two faiths that Jimmy mentioned in the beginning of his, that it’s just an intellectual that when we’re speaking about faith, we’re already assuming the third to be true and the others are inevitable. So there’s always going to be a continual faith, not a broken faith from one to another because we would say right, wouldn’t you say that most Protestants would say that?
Horn:
Well, I don’t know exactly what was just summarized there, so I can’t really agree to it, but
Akin:
I also would reject the characterization of this being two faiths. As Jude three says, the faith was once for all delivered to the saints. There is only one faith and it’s the Christian faith. A person may make more than one act of embracing that faith, but there is only one faith.
Boyce:
But wouldn’t that be consistent with baptism too? Because there’s only one baptism, Dr.
Host:
We got that conclude the cross sex. So now Trenton, Jimmy are up for the 15 minute cross X of Samuel and Steven.
Horn:
Alrighty. Well I have some questions here and Jimmy, if you want to chime in, you’re more than welcome to. I do. I mean we can talk about, well I had a few questions I was eager to ask when Jimmy was going, I didn’t get to, so maybe I can throw them out here and we’ll have some fun with that. Which would you say is a better formulation of your view? You’re justified by faith alone or you’re justified by saving faith alone.
Nesan:
Lemme answer that. I’ll just say that the faith that we refer to, sorry, the faith that we are referring to is the saving faith. That’s what we are referring to. We’re not referring to mere intellectual ascent.
Horn:
Okay. Does the Bible ever use the term saving faith?
Nesan:
No.
Horn:
Okay. Let’s see here. So your position is that we are not justified by works but works, but good works are present in the person who is truly justified and has saving faith. Is that correct?
Nesan:
Yes. Faith produces works. Yes.
Horn:
Okay. What specifically are the good works that will be present
Boyce:
Charity.
Nesan:
There will be the
Boyce:
Love charity, the right facts of love First John? Yeah, one, John three, whoever’s righteous will practice righteousness and that is further described as love.
Horn:
Okay.
Nesan:
And I’ll also add Trent, I’ll just also add participation in the local church and in the sacraments as well.
Horn:
Agreed. So someone who does not participate in a local church, they do not have saving faith,
Nesan:
I don’t think there. Salvation outside the church.
Boyce:
Agreed.
Horn:
Alright, let’s see here. Because what I’m trying to understand, because I feel like that sometimes when we talk about the works and the justification, I don’t think they’re really that different. So I have one more question on that then I do want to go over the historical question because I think it is important. So would you say then for a saved person, alright, how about this a justified person, will they exhibit some sins in their life? Minor sins?
Boyce:
Absolutely.
Horn:
Okay. Are there some sins that would show that they’re not actually saved? If they were an abortionist or they were an OnlyFans pornographer and they persisted in that, would that show that they didn’t have saving faith?
Boyce:
Yeah, I think that’s one Corinthians. He lists quite a few mortal sins that are there that those people will not inherit the kingdom of God. And all of those are in a practicing form. So I don’t want to speak for Samuel, but my answer would be yes, there are specific sins that are listed that demonstrates somebody does not have the kingdom of God. John does the same thing in his epistle. He says whoever hates his brother, we know whoever hates does not have eternal life abiding in him. That person has demonstrated they’ve never been
Akin:
Okay. I’d like to follow up on that because one of the things that St. Paul says, we’re talking about one Corinthians six and he gives this list, he says, do not be deceived. The following kinds of people will not inherit the kingdom of God. And he says, such were some of you, but you were wash of you, you were sanctified, you were justified. So he’s talking to people who have, some of them were in those categories, but he says the ones he’s writing to have been washed and sanctified and justified. So they’re currently in a state of grace. Nevertheless, he’s given a clear warning here he is saying, do not be deceived. The following kinds of people will not inherit the kingdom of God. So the obvious inference which has been received in the Catholic church all the way down through history is that you can be washed and sanctified and justified and if you fall back into those categories that he just named, you will lose your salvation. So this to me seems to be the obvious implication of this text. Do you agree or at least do you feel the force of that argument?
Nesan:
No, for me, Steven, shall I go and answer that?
Akin:
Go ahead. No, you’re fine. Go ahead Simon.
Nesan:
Yeah, no, go ahead.
Akin:
This Steven, you feel no force to that argument?
Nesan:
Not at all. Because I think that first of all, when Paul is talking about this, he describes this is first Corinthians six was nine onwards do not be deceived. Those who practice a list of other things, including malaco and Ace, effeminate men, practicing homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God. Verse 11, he says, such was some of you but you were washed. That’s past tense. It’s taken place. Five 11 says that if those people were doing these things, the church ought to excommunicate them. They cannot be in fellowship in the church. So my understanding of that is that those who are doing this are no longer in fellowship in the church, but those who are in church have repented from these things. It’s in the past.
Akin:
Okay. Samuel, do you pray the Lord’s prayer?
Nesan:
Yes, I do.
Akin:
Okay. And have all of your sins past, present, and future been forgiven?
Nesan:
From a timeless perspective, yes, but in time, no, that requires repentancy
Akin:
Then it would seem you’re being insincere when you’re praying the Lord’s prayer because you’re not really asking him to forgive your debts. They’ve already all been forgiven, including the future ones.
Nesan:
And I distinguished it Jimmy from saying, but in a timeless perspective they’ve already been forgiven. But in time we repent and God interacts with us as we,
Horn:
But who forgives the sins? Who forgives them?
Nesan:
God? Does
Horn:
God have a temporal or a timeless perspective?
Nesan:
God is both timeless and at the same time he interacts with creatures in time.
Horn:
No. Is God timeless or is he not timeless?
Nesan:
He’s both timeless and has chosen voluntarily to enter into time since the creation of the world.
Horn:
No, I would say that’s a contradiction.
Nesan:
So I think a result, if you’re wondering yeah, to John Freeman, I don’t want
Horn:
To hijack. I’ll get to
Akin:
That to Jimmy. Okay, so two questions related to this. First one, were you forgiven before you repented? Because if you’re making an argument based on God’s timelessness and when you pray, forgive us our debts, you’re referring to past, present and future sins and God is timeless, then he forgave you timelessly on this timelessness model you’re proposing and it would seem you would be forgiven before you were even born. Is that your understanding? I
Nesan:
Think that’s what revelation means when it talks about the names of those written in the book of life before the foundations of the world. Yes.
Akin:
Okay, second question in first John, John is writing and he says, my little children, I’m writing that you may not sin. So he’s talking to Christians because he calls ’em his children and he says, I’m writing so that you may not sin, but he says, if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ, the righteous. So if he acknowledges a Christian can sin and he says that’ll be taken care of because we have an advocate with God who’s Jesus Christ. So he’s envisioning Christ up in heaven interceding for people as they commit new sins. So that would imply these sins have not yet been forgiven because you haven’t repented and Christ hasn’t yet advocated for you. So it would seem that contradicts your of you that you’ve been forgiven of future sins because there’s new action required by Jesus Christ in order to deal with the new sins you’ve committed. Would you agree with that?
Nesan:
I think that I take a different view of that. So we I take is that Christ does not bring every time I sin so that if I scold someone when I’m driving on the highway, Jesus is instantly making remedy for that by praying to the Father. No, I don’t think that’s the view. I think the intercessory work of Christ culminates all the sense that I’ve done past, present, future. I do not know the exact nature of what Jesus is saying at any given time, but I think that it’s because Jesus is interceding that I’m brought to repentance every time by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Akin:
I
Boyce:
Chime in.
Akin:
Yep, please.
Boyce:
I don’t want to interrupt. I know y’all going well. I do have
Akin:
Something I want to
Boyce:
Ask, but I’ll let you wrap it.
Akin:
I also have one too, but you first had
Boyce:
We all do alright. First, John is very emphasis, highly emphasizing the idea of fellowship with God and one another. I think that that fellowship, the sins that you’re referring to can break that. He also goes on later on to say that a believer cannot practice sin because he has the seed of God remaining in him being the Holy Spirit. So there’s an aspect to this too. That’s why we were talking about earlier in one Corinthians, this idea of continuing these mortal sins or whatever you may label them would demonstrate a person is not. However, there are sins that we do commit daily that require the grace of God and the confession. I believe in confession and absolution because I think we need it in light of how we deal with one another, not loving one another. It breaks fellowship both with the fellowship aspect. It doesn’t mean that I’m not righteous before God, but I can hinder that relationship by producing sins against the flesh of others and also against the spirit.
Akin:
Trent, you first?
Horn:
Yeah, I just have a few rapid fire questions on the history part. I didn’t want to lose track of that to make
Boyce:
Sure No, go for it.
Horn:
Yeah, that’s fair. Would you say that there is a consensus in the early church, if not universal, that baptism remits sins that we are regenerated in baptism? That’s where justification begins.
Boyce:
Absolutely.
Horn:
Okay, Samuel?
Boyce:
Yes. Yeah, consensus.
Horn:
Okay, well I’ll let either one answer. Go ahead. Go ahead. I’ll let Sam, you can chime in whenever if you want on either of you can chime in. Number two. Yeah, go ahead. Number two, was there a consensus in the early church that a true Christian one who has been justified could per lose their salvation permanently? They could lose the gift of justification, however you want to use the vocab. Could you become a true Christian then stop being a Christian permanently? Did the church believe that as a consensus?
Boyce:
I don’t know if that would be a consensus. I think there were good statements made that could lean either way and I don’t think either side can say a consensus leans with me.
Akin:
Okay. Trent, you must be telepathic because you asked exactly the question I was going to go to. Y’all have acknowledged that the early church universally believed in justification being administered through baptism. Well, it was equally universal that you can lose your salvation through, for example, apostasy. And it was obvious that Christians could commit apostasy because some of them did. And so Christians naturally including Predestines like Augustine would say, yeah, you can be genuinely justified in baptism and then you can lose it if you’re not one of those who God has predestined to persevere. So he envisioned two groups, a larger group of people who were predestined, and this is just, I’m not talking about non predestinates, but on the view of Augustine, people could be predestined to come to Christ for a time but not stay. And then there were others who weren’t even predestinate in the way Augustine was. So there was a universal consensus among early Christians that you could lose your salvation. Can you name anyone from the patristic period who was an orthodox Christian, I’m not talking about gnostics, but a church father who thought that you can not lose your salvation or was this an innovation of John Calvin’s?
Boyce:
No, going back to that, this is, I think the problem that McGrath brought up about justification is that it had such range of motion in its definition that we’re now taking Protestant terms and putting them back into the patristics again because they weren’t looking at it from the debate that we’re looking it at, oh
Horn:
Wait Jimmy, I want to hear yours. So Dr. Boyce, when St. Aaronia says the following, those who do not obey him being disinherited by him have ceased to be his sons, therefore they cannot receive his inheritance. Is he not talking about saved Christians who are no longer saved?
Boyce:
In his mind, he seems to believe that that could be the case for Iron Aus. Again, I would never dispute that every single father. That’s why I said I don’t think there’s a
Akin:
Consensus here. Hence my question. I think there is a consensus, hence my question. Can you name anybody who said it’s impossible to lose your salvation from the patristic period? Anyone? Just one? Yes.
Boyce:
I don’t think they talked about it the way we’re talking about it. I don’t
Akin:
Think in that case it seems we have,
Horn:
I disagree with that because they are talking
Akin:
About
Horn:
It. I believe that we can produce quotations where you could reach that conclusion that they deny eternal security. So let me answer this question. If we can determine a father rejected eternal security, wouldn’t we also be capable of discovering they affirmed it?
Boyce:
Well, clearly Augustine believed in eternal security and now he wouldn’t use that
Akin:
Word. Not for Christians, not for Christians in general, only for the elect within the broader group of people who have been justified,
Boyce:
Which he would limit to Christians in that regard to those who’ve been predestined to the eternal salvation. Right?
Akin:
No, no. As I said, Augustine, and this is very clear in his writings, he believed you could be predestined to come to Christ and be a genuine Christian and be justified and yet not be predestined to persevere. He distinguished between predestination to justification and predestination to final salvation. So only some of those who are predestined to be justified are also predestined to persevere until the end of life. So he didn’t believe in eternal security for all of the justified.
Boyce:
I want
Horn:
To just quickly,
Speaker 8:
Okay, go ahead. Yeah,
Horn:
I was just going to say what your thoughts were on this quotation from Augustine when he says being already regenerate and justified a believer relapses of his own will into an evil life. Assuredly he cannot say, I have not received because of his own free choice to evil, he has lost the grace of God. That sounds like Augustine saying salvation can be lost. Do you disagree?
Boyce:
Again, I think that when we’re talking about justification, there’s three dynamics to the justification he’s looking at. And this goes back to what Samuel was talking about, looking at things on an eternal plane and not because Augustine in one moment is speaking an eternal plane where God’s vision and viewpoint versus man’s viewpoint. I think the context in what he’s saying, this is much different than how you’re presenting it
Horn:
And people can perseverance 19 and decide for themselves.
Akin:
And I would say y’all been able to document a father, you
Host:
Agreed with your view. We’re going to conclude that. Alright, thank you for the cross x, appreciate it guys. Thank you so much for the energy invested in that. I really appreciate that and audience definitely getting a lot out of it as well. So we’ll jump into our q and a, just be a 15 minute q and a. And so we got our first question here. This comes from Logan. Thank you for the super chat Logan, this is for the Protestants. What happens to individual who gets saved and is cooperating with God’s grace but falls back into one of the sins mentioned in one Corinthians chapter six, who of which one cannot enter into the kingdom?
Nesan:
Yeah, lemme take that question then. So the point of Paul saying that they were wash, they were justify is to indicate that this was a state of the past. This is not a continuous state that they’re going to live in, nor can they fall back into it first. John, I can’t remember the exact chapter, it might be chapter two or three says if they left us, they never were with us and they’re going demonstrated that they were not offered from the beginning. And so when you look at Judahs, I’ll just give that as an example. Judahs not, was not saved at one point and then lost his salvation in John chapter 17 was struck. Jesus says he was doomed to destruction in John six. Jesus said he’s a devil. So it’s not like a good person who was with Jesus and then lost grace. He was the devil from the beginning.
Akin:
Did you want to say something Steven?
Boyce:
No, go ahead.
Akin:
Go ahead. So I understand the position you’re articulating. It’s Calvinism in essence, and Calvinism is of course the opinion of Calvinists. It is not the opinion of any of the historic forms of Christianity that preceded the reformation, including Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East and so forth. And it is not the opinion of most Protestants. You have numerous Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, free will and General Baptists who all agree that our future sins have not been forgiven and therefore it is quite possible for someone to fall into a sin that needs to be forgiven. And this was abundantly obvious to the Christians in the Patristic age because they saw people who were baptized and thus justified and who then went on to apostatize, particularly during the Roman persecutions. And they recognized that those who had apostatized were no longer saved and needed to be reconciled with God in the church. So you guys, I asked you repeatedly, can you name anybody who agreed with your view and you couldn’t, which just happens to illustrate the fact that belief in perseverance of the saints and eternal security in general was an innovation of John Calvin and not even Martin Luther believed it. It was really Calvin who started that.
Horn:
I’ll add a Presbyterian to Jimmy’s list there. This passage verse Corinthians six, you’re right as the famous two words, dealing with Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. Robert Gagnan has one of the best books on this subject, the Bible and homosexual practice. And in that book he writes of that passage and he’s a Presbyterian. Paul was clearly concerned that believers might return to former patterns of sinful practices including same-sex intercourse practices that could lead to loss of salvation
Host:
All. All right, let’s go on to the next question here. And this question is for Trent. He’s making a hypothetical and he says, Trent, say you had a sister who hated God and loved to sin. If on her deathbed she repentant and put her faith in Christ and nothing else, do you believe she would be saved?
Horn:
Well, I do have a sister who actually she is Christian and she’s still walking with Christ. So it would definitely be a hypothetical there. I don’t think she hates God or loves sin, but I would say that this would go for this. It’s not just a personal thing, it applies to anybody that if someone, let’s see, who has hated God loved to sin? Salvation is by faith in Christ. So if someone is moved by God’s grace and they accept God’s offer of salvation, they can be saved. The normal means are baptism. But if baptism is not possible, like you’re on your deathbed and you make a genuine act of repentance and faith in Christ, you certainly can be saved. We don’t have knowledge of every individual situation, but that can be the case. However, exceptional circumstances do not give us good guidelines for do not give us ordinary guidelines.
Akin:
No. If on her deathbed she genuinely repented of her hatred of God so that she now loves God and she repented of her love of sin so that she’s rejected sin and she’s put her faith in God, then she has justifying faith. She has formed faith. And even if she’s not able to be baptized on her deathbed, then she will be saved. Justifying faith alone will put you in a state of justification and she’ll go to heaven.
Host:
Alright, and here’s Steven,
Nesan:
You want to add anything?
Host:
Yep.
Boyce:
I mean there was a question kind of hypothetically thrown at Trent. It’d be hard to, I mean if you want to say
Nesan:
Something. Yeah, just want to add one point. Yeah, I just wanted to add, just wanted to add one more thing to this and that is that I think that this is the norm for which people are saved. I think people are baptized because of the internal work that God has done within, and you would see this in Acts chapter two, they would be convicted to their heart and they say, what must we do to be saved? And Peter would tell them to believe in Gs and to be baptized. And so I think those two things flow from one to another. It’s not just an exception. This is just genuinely the way true. Saving faith leads to baptism. And that’s what we’ve been talking about. Disagreements on that. Yes,
Horn:
Sure. But I would say in Acts two, it’s they’re not getting baptized to show they are saved. Peter’s indictment cuts them to the heart and they’re looking for a remedy in that remedy is baptism.
Boyce:
Not without faith though. Not without faith because
Horn:
They’re adults that are being spoken to.
Host:
All right, and here’s a question for Samuel. These guys got some personal questions directly of people. Alright, Samuel question. Luke chapter 10, verse 20 Was Judas written in heaven at one point then lost it.
Nesan:
Lemme read Luke chapter. Sorry, the whole thing is blurred on my screen. It’s Luke chapter
Boyce:
10. It’s very blurry. I had a hard time reading that too. Yeah,
Host:
Yeah, I’ll read it as many times as I need it is Luke chapter 10 verse 20
Akin:
That says, nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you but rejoice that your names are written in heaven. I would assume that they’re tying that to Judas because the 70 have just come back and Judas like the rest of the 12 would’ve been among the 70.
Nesan:
Yeah, I would say it’s a little bit speculative to in here.
Boyce:
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
Nesan:
Yeah, no worries. But what I would say is that regardless of whether Judas was in or not to suggest that if the argument is simply that Judas was in this group and that Jesus is saying this, that means that every one of the 70 or 72 have their names written in heaven. I think that’s a little bit of conjecture. I think what we have to do is take the words of Jesus himself in John chapter six. Jesus feeds the 5,000, they follow him and the remainder is this 12. And he looks at them and says, I chose the 12 of you, yet one of you is a devil. So my argument is a simple one. Judas was not a saved person, not true. He was a genuine apostle. And that’s the scary part, right? You can be a genuine apostle minister to the ministry of Christ and still not be saved that that’s the whole point. And so I’m looking at John chapter 17 specifically for this John chapter 17, verse 12. Jesus says, I’ve not lost any of those you had given me except the one the son of petition. So he was not given to Christ. If it was not given to Christ, was his name written in heaven? I don’t think so. Why does Luke chapter 10, I can’t see the words, it’s 20 10, 20 say that. Well I’m not sure if Judas was even there to make the argument that Judas there is conjecture or speculative at best.
Horn:
And I would say it’s not speculative. If you look at Matthew 1928, Jesus says to the apostles, you who have followed me will also sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. That seems to be directed to all 12. And that would include Judas. And I couldn’t imagine that a genuine apostle who is an actual devil could really sit on a throne judging people unless at that time he was still in fellowship, he had not fallen away yet. And so that makes more sense to John 1712 when it said that I have lost none but the son of perdition that he was given over but he actually did lose something. So actually what’s interesting is that Christ says on this particular verse, he says, what it means is at least for my part, I will not lose them, but they can certainly lose their own salvation.
Boyce:
I would add in that the 12 is often the group necessarily the individuals because by the end of this there’s 14 and typically see that even in how Paul used the group of the 12 later on in first Corinthians 15, only referencing 11 of them, in fact 10 because he separated CFIs but yet he called them the 12. So I think that it’s more civic to the group than the individuals because at the end of the day, window with 14 apostles, you have Matthias, then you have Paul, and that’s how it’s even referenced in the new city in Jerusalem. So I think that could be the whole group, not every individual.
Akin:
And I’m not committed to arguing that Judas was at one time saved, but I would acknowledge that the evidence supports, at least facially supports what trenches said because Jesus does speak of the 12, including Judas sitting on 12 thrones, which on its face makes it sound like he saved. And similarly in John he says, I have lost none but this one predestined one and the verb lost implies he once had him. So at least facially that makes it sound like Judas was saved. Similarly, he says, I’ve chosen you yet one of you is a devil that says some very interesting things about the concept of election for Calvinists you can be chosen and yet be a devil.
Host:
Alright? All right. And here is another question for the Catholics in John chapter six verses 28 to 29, when Jesus was asked what the works of God are and he said, believe in the one whom he sent works equal belief. Does this not settle the discussion?
Akin:
No it doesn’t because Jesus added to the discussion later on. Like I said, we’ve got to read John as a, and in John 15 Jesus says that if you want to remain in him, you need to keep his commandments. And he says, my commandment is love one another. So part of what believing in the sun means is embracing not just believe that Jesus is real or that Jesus died for you or something, but believe in his teachings. That’s part of believing in Jesus is believing in what he taught us and he taught us that if we want to remain in him, we need to have love and we need to act on that.
Horn:
And that’s why John 3 36 says, he who believes in the Son has eternal life. He who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. So belief is a prerequisite to obedience, but belief in and of itself is not sufficient if it’s not followed by obedience, what you believe in.
Boyce:
I’ll even add that Jesus in this chapter, I’ll go team Catholic for a minute, sorry, I’ll add in this chapter in John six abiding. Well we are reformed Catholics in Anglicanism, so we are there halfway. But when you look at it, he talks about abiding process. The abiding that I think Jimmy’s referring to in 15 is also mentioned in chapter six that eating the flesh and drinking his blood is the process in which what we do abide because he says, whoever does not eat my flesh and does not drink my blood will not abide in me. So I think that the action here is beyond just belief, it’s not belief. And then that settles the debate. I mean if that was a case, this debate would’ve been over two hours ago. There is a aspect to where that faith is in a biding process that’s continuing and it’s even sacrament is being presented in it. And I do not think you can separate the sacrament from salvation. I just don’t.
Akin:
Marlon, just a bookkeeping question. How long on our 15 minute q and a at this point
Host:
It’s about a minute and 30 seconds left.
Horn:
Maybe get a question with a one word answer for us.
Host:
Yeah, all. So have to throw that at you all we’re
Boyce:
Apologists we’re a
Horn:
Hazard of theologians, a apologists and pastors.
Host:
Yeah, exactly, exactly.
Akin:
Pastors.
Boyce:
Yes.
Host:
So this will probably be the final question of the q and a here. Do Protestants interpret this verse for whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind and have you forgotten that he was cleansed from his past sins? I going to ask how do you interpret that verse? Yeah, how do you interpret that?
Nesan:
Yeah, so can you hear me because I lost my, I just dropped out for a while.
Host:
No, we can hear you
Boyce:
Here. Oh
Nesan:
Great. So that’s in second Peter one, nine. And Peter is actually telling them that if you don’t see these qualities in a person, namely fate, supplementing their faith with virtue, virtue with steadfastness, steadfastness with godliness, godliness with I think it was self-control and readily affectionate. If you don’t see these qualities then the problem is that this person forgot that they were washed. And so the goal of Christian discipleship and often teach from this passage is reminder, which is why from verses 13 to 15, same chapter second Peter one, 13 to 15, Peter says, I see it fit to remind you. I want to remind you while I’m still in this body, it’s good for me to remind you. I know the putting off of my body will be soon, but I’ll make every attempt that after I’m gone you may be able to recall these things.
The goal of Christian discipleship is reminding so that when someone is genuinely saved, they don’t lose your salvation. No. If they live the lifestyle that is mentioned in fiscal Corinthians six, nine to 10, then they were never saved to begin with. That’s the position I hold now. Sure they can be part of the local church in which sense they’re saved in the sense of they’re participating in the sacraments, they’re doing the things they look safe for all intents and purposes like Juah did, but they’re not saved in the election sense, which is why the Knicks was afterwards nine a second Peter one 10 confirm your election. That’s the whole point of discipleship.
Akin:
And as Richard Balcomb points out the confirm, your election can be understood either in terms of feeling subjectively certain or objectively confirming it so that you don’t lose your status as one of the chosen. Peter also clarifies this matter in the next chapter where he’s talking about people who have turned back from the faith and he says that these individuals promise the freedom while they themselves are slaves of depravity if they have escaped the corruption of this world by knowing our savior and Lord Jesus Christ. So these are genuine Christians and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would’ve been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and turned their backs on it. So Peter explicitly envisions the possibility of genuine Christians losing their salvation just in the very next chapter.
Boyce:
I would just add that I think those are referring back to the whole text that they were a part of the benefits of the community of grace. They were receiving and partaking of these very things that are promised. And through Christ’s love for his church, they were in the community of grace benefiting from the community of grace and instead of embracing and receiving grace, they actually distorted it, turned away from it, used it for lascivious and they actually turned people away from it with themselves and that was the greater damnation that it had been better for them never to have been in that state than to be in that state and to turn from that state. I don’t think it was something personalized, I think it’s something they benefited from by being in the community of grace.
Host:
Alright guys, thank you so much guys for that fantastic q and a. We are going to close, I don’t know if you guys want to shrink the closing down to maybe five minutes. I know we agreed seven minutes, but time is, or we could, I don’t know if you guys want to just end it here or do you guys want to do the closing? How you guys want to do it?
Horn:
I feel like everything’s been kind of said. How do you guys
Boyce:
Feel? Yeah, I agree. Oh, I agree.
Akin:
Since it’s unjust to introduce new topics in a closing statement, I was just going to repeat some of the highlights of what I said, so
Host:
Got you. I’m
Nesan:
Fine ending it here. Yeah.
Host:
Alright, fair enough. You guys are great. I really appreciate you guys man, because you guys are, I’m listening to you guys and I’m just digesting everything you guys are saying, man. I really enjoyed the conversation. I really, again appreciate you guys and it’s an honor to be able to host you guys, man. It really is to be able to have you guys on and I definitely appreciate you guys taking your time forth from your families and whatever else you guys could be doing to spend it with me and this audience on the gospel truth, man. So with that said, do you guys have any closing words before I let you guys go?
Akin:
I just want to say, and I’m sure Trent agrees, we appreciate you very much, Marlon, for hosting us. We appreciate Samuel and Steven for their interaction, including their cordiality. We disagree on some stuff, but we’ve had a productive exchange and I just want to extend a sincere thanks to everybody.
Horn:
Same.
Nesan:
Yeah, I just want to thank you Marlon. Thanks Steven. And especially thanks to Jimmy and Trent as well. Really, really enjoyed engaging with you guys. Thank you.
Boyce:
Yeah, same guys. I really appreciate it. Good host, Marlon. You always do a good job.
Host:
I appreciate that man. Steve, I appreciate you man. Thank you man. I appreciate that’s Encourag.
Boyce:
Need better software, you need better software,
Host:
Whatever it is. All operator error, man. Operator error buddy. Operator error. But nonetheless guys, you guys are great, man. You guys enjoy the rest of your evening and what you have left of it anyway. And you guys, I’ll be looking forward to perhaps engaging with you guys once again. You got to be blessed. All right.

Host:

Alright. All right. Thank you you guys for joining me. Thank you. Thank you for joining me. I’m excited for this one. I’m glad we was able to hash out all the information. If you guys only understood how I was standing by my phone in my email, look for correspondence between you guys, man, trying to make sure you guys get the information to each other. Man, it was a long state, a long ordeal, put it that way. But I appreciate you guys dealing with being patient and everything. So we’re going to jump into this debate, but before we jump into it, I’m going to give you guys a chance to introduce yourselves to the audience. Let ’em know what you do. Blogs, YouTube channel. Y’all are popular guys, so they probably already know who you are, but you never know. It may be one or two out there that do not know who you are all. So start with Trent and Jamie, if you don’t mind giving a quick introduction of yourself.

Horn:

Well, my name is Trent Horn. I am a Catholic apologist. I am a staff apologist Catholic Answers been there for about 12 years. I have a podcast, the Council of Trent, C-O-U-N-S-E-L, bill on iTunes, Google Play, and of course on YouTube. I’m the author of I think about a dozen books by now and I’m married and have three children.

Akin:

Alright, Jimmy. And my name is Jimmy Aiken. I’m a Christian apologist and a Catholic apologist in particular. I am the senior apologist at Catholic Cancers. I’ve been working there for over 30 years now and I’m on a bunch of podcasts. The most famous one, which is in this week, it’s a top 10 podcast on Apple for documentary podcasts. It’s called Jimmy Aikens Mysterious World. I look at all kinds of mysterious subjects and it’s family friendly show and you can get to it by going to mysterious fm.

Host:

Alright. All right, thank you Trent and Jimmy for joining me. Appreciate it. All right, Dr. Steven, boy and Sam, I got your name screwed up, but don’t worry about that. Go ahead and give a quick introduction yourself, Sam, one of y’all.

Nesan:

So can you hear me?

Host:

Yeah, we can hear you. You’re breaking up a little bit, but let’s see if it stables itself out.

Nesan:

Perfect. Alright, well I’m Samuel, not Steven Bo, I wish. Yeah. But yeah, I’m an Christian apologist and I’m also the director of the Great Commission Apologetics program at Malaysia Baptist Geological Seminary. I teach there, I’ve been teaching there since 21. And I’m also the co-founder and president of Explain International and Ministry dedicated to equipping Christians to explain their faith in fulfilling the Great Commission.

Boyce:

And I’m Steven Boyce. I am an apologist as well. Specifically have my own program called Facts, which is an acronym for Fathers apocryphal, Canon texts and scripture. Our main focus is particularly early church history in defending the Christian faith from its early formations. I’m also a part of a scholarship working in the scholar program with RTB Reasons to Believe with Dr. Hugh Ross, which is mostly in the sciences, but lately they’ve been bringing in textual criticism and canonicity as well, which is what I did my PhD in. I’m also a teacher, I teach apologetics to 11th to 12th graders and high school and I’m also an adjunct professor in addition to what Samuel does with Malaysia Baptist Theological Seminary. I’m also an Anglican and have recently been working with the Anglican diocese that I’m a part of the Diocese of the Carolinas where fax has been sanctioned to be used a part of its equipping process.

Host:

Alright, thank you guys for those introductions and we’re going to jump right into it. And the topic of today’s debate is how should we understand justification? We’ll be approaching this from a biblical and a historical church historical standpoint. A first part of the debate will be from a biblical standpoint and we’ll start that with 10 minute opening statements. It’ll be five minute rebuttals, then it’d a 15 minute cross section. Both opponents will be get a chance to ask each other’s questions and then audience keep this in mind as well. There will be a 15 minute q and a right after that. So you guys got to get your questions in. Now we’re going to use that same format for the second part of this debate, which is what did the early church believe about justification and where we approach the debate from a church historical standpoint. And once again the format would be 10 minute openings, five minute rebuttals, and then 15 minute cross-examination where both parties get to ask questions. And once again after that, that will introduce another 15 minute q and a from our audience. And then after all of that we’ll have a seven minute closing statement from each team and then that will conclude the debate for tonight. Are we all on the same page with that?

Alright, with that said, Samuel, you’ll be presenting a biblical argument. And Samuel, I believe that you will be presenting first here. And so I will bring the screen up here so that you will have the floor and I will start your time. Give me a second, Samuel, before you go for it. Let me get your audio and everything situated. And so Samuel, you have 10 minutes and I’ll start your time and you begin to speak

Nesan:

Thank Jimmy and Trent for being open and having this discussion on an important topic that is the topic of justification. Specifically I’ll be dealing with the question, what justifies a person before? And perhaps it’s good to deal with the definitions before we get started. Thanks Jimmy for doing the slides for me. So let’s move to definitions. Let’s begin by defining justification because one of the key texts for this debate is Romans 3 28. That is we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. So these things need to be justified to be defined. And so let’s begin with the word justification. It comes from the Greek word, the cayo, and it means to render right or just to hold as guiltless or to accept as righteous. I’m using Jimmy’s favorite lexicon here that is mount as lexicon. The word fate on the other hand.

Number two comes from the Greek with and can refer to faith, belief firm, persuasion of firm conviction. Now I look forward to having a discussion between what kind of faith we’re talking about here. Is it fiduciary faith? Is it fi for matter formed faith? That’s an important discussion to have, but we’ll get into that in just a minute. The third one that we need to define, and this is perhaps important, very important especially when discussing what works is works can refer to according to mounds are gone, can refer to anything done or to be done. That is a duty we have before God be the 10 commandments, be it the sacraments, whatever we need to do before God counts as works now that’s it. Let’s discuss this point. When we say that we are justified by faith alone, do we mean that it is a ascent which is delo from any commitment to charity?

Well, no. In fact Luther in his definition of faith, the next slide says Faith is God’s work in us. That is that it gives us new birth from God and is working of John one 13. It changes our heart. There is regeneration and he goes on to say faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continue to do them without seizing anyone who does not do good works based on Luther’s definition in this manner is an unbeliever. Now Kelvin says something similar as well, which I think we may find a little bit of common ground, especially when we discuss Fe is for mother and that is Kelvin says indeed we confess that with Paul that no other faith justifies but faith working through love here is interacting with Galatians five, six. So I’m going to be making three contention. The first contention I’m making would be that saving faith is a gift of God which is attained through the merits of Christ. Apart from works now this is the two most light star. Thanks Jimmy.

The next one. Yeah, thank you. Alright, so saving fate is a gift of God which is attained through the merits of Christ. Apart from works we see in Ephesians two was eight to nine, maybe we could just flash all the verse up. I won’t be covering all of them due to time, but Ephesians two was eight to nine says four, by grace you have been saved through faith. This is not of your own doing, it is the gift of God, not of works as anyone should boast in Acts 1348, as many as were appointed unto eternal life believed. So God’s appointment precedes them. Believing Acts 16 tells us that the Lord opened up her heart referring to Lydia that she would pay attention to what was being said by Paul. And so we see even in one John five, four, everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world.

And what is that victory? Well, John tells us that this is the victory that has overcome the world, our faith. And so through these passages we see that faith is a gift of God. That is something we attain based on the merits of Christ and not based on anything we do. Number two, this faith and I call it saving faith to be distinguished from just a mere intellectual ascent Dewars from the good works that we see described in James chapter two. This faith is accompanied by the good works and I’ll define that in just a minute. But it stems from the new birth of regeneration and it includes among good works, genuine repentance, godly living, a genuine hunger and thirst for righteousness, a demonstration of the fruits of the spirit and participation in the sacraments and so on. So now Peter the Apostle Peter deals with this in two Peter chapter one, he begins in verse one by saying Simeon Peter servant an apostle of Jesus Christ to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing widows by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

So notice it is a faith that is equal standing with Peter. Yes, you and I believers have the faith of equal standing with the Apostle Peter himself, but it is not based on what we’ve done. It is based on the merits or the works or the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. And in fact, Peter urges the church was five to say for this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, and goes on to add brotherly love dealing with affection and among other things that we need to supplement the faith with. He goes on to say in verse nine, for whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind having forgotten he was cleansed from his former sins. And so Peter sums us up by telling us that we ought to be diligent in verse 10 that confirm our calling an election.

So based on this one sees that the faith we received is a fate from God. But this is no intellectual, mere intellectual ascent. It is a faith that is accompanied by repentance, by godly living. It is demonstrating the fruits of the spirit. It is supplementing that faith with the fruits of that fate, namely virtue, steadfastness godliness and brotherly affection among other things. And so when we look at this particular view of this that leads to the third and final part of this, that is that the saving fate we receive from God is both eternal, that it brings about eternal life and as the sole basis for our justification before God. Philippians one, six gives us the promise that he who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ. Again, this is not just someone saying, well I believe but does not demonstrate it.

The demonstration of that fate is fruits of the genuine fate working itself out through love. First Peter three, five says, blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you. That’s the promise. And look at verse five, who are kept by the power of God, true faith for salvation to be revealed in the last time. So we are kept by the power of God, not based on our own doing, but we’re kept true faith and it demonstrates, it reveals the good works that God is working within us. Now in my closing few minutes, just what I want do is to just demonstrate this saving faith, all that I’ve discussed here.

That is number one, that this saving faith is a gift of God attained through the merits of Christ by faith, this faith, sorry, is attained by the merits of Christ. And number two, this faith is demonstrated or evidence by good words, it stems from a regenerated heart. And number three, it results in godly living. And when we look through the patriarchs of the Old Testament, we see of course that Adam sinned before God and we find a beautiful promise of Genesis three 15 where God says to him, O says to the serpent rather that he would cause this enmity to come between the serpent and the woman and that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent. That’s a foreshadow of the blessed mother Mary who gives birth to the seed of that woman that is the Lord Jesus Christ himself who crushes the head of the serpent.

And when Adam ceased this in Genesis three 20, he declares by faith that this woman he now calls Eve is the mother of all the living. And so what makes Adam look at Eve after what she’s just done together with him and say she’s the mother of the living well, he sees her in view in the lens of God’s promises. That is true her the seed will come that provides victory to the world. And instantly after that, verse 21, Adam is coward. His shame is by the kid. And so we see this. It’s my time up already.

Speaker 6:

No, you got one minute left.

Nesan:

One minute left. Oh gotcha. Thank you. Yeah, and when we look through the life of Noah, we see in the context of an evil world, Noah found favor in God’s eyes. You look at the words of Abraham, he was justified by faith in Genesis 15 verse six. And then in Genesis chapter 22 was 10 to 12. We see that the angel says to him, now I know that you fear God. So which came first? Was it the faith, the justified him or was it the works? We see that the order is the other way around. That is the faith leading to works. But it’s like I said, no intellectual asset. Now I’m going to stop here due to time, but I look forward to hearing and learning from my Catholic friends here on the topic of justification. Thank you very much.

Host:

Alright, thank you Sam for that opening. All right, so Jimmy, you’re up for your 10 minute opening statement and oh yeah, I forgot to tell you guys about that little chime. That is a one minute indication. You have one minute left in your presentation. So sorry about that. I forgot to let you guys know that. But

Akin:

So I wanted to start by noting a principle that St. Paul mentions in second Timothy. He says, Timothy needs to warn folks not to quarrel about words, not to dispute about ’em because it’s not beneficial and it only leads to the ruin of the hearers. So what we can learn from that is that if we agree on the substance of doctrine, even if we use different language to express it, we shouldn’t quarrel about that. Now of course, in order to resolve disputes about words, you frequently need to talk about their meaning. So talking about words is not the same thing as quarrel and about ’em. I recently debated someone who seemed deeply confused on that point. A keyword we should talk about is faith. This term is used in different senses and it’s used in at least three ways in the New Testament. The first kind which is mentioned in James two 19 is intellectual faith.

It’s just agreement with the teachings of the Christian faith. But that’s not saving faith because James says even the demons believe have faith in that sense and yet they shudder. A step up from that is what’s called fiducial faith. And this involves not only intellectual belief but also trust in God, but that also is not saving faith. As Paul says in one Corinthians 13, if I have faith so that I could move mountains, so he’s really trusting God but don’t have love, I’m nothing and it doesn’t benefit him anything, then there’s what’s known as formed faith or faith formed by charity. So it incorporates intellectual belief, it incorporates trust and it incorporates love. And this is what the Catholic church understands sa faith to be. As Paul says in Galatians five, six, in Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything but faith working through love well.

So how to Protestants understand justification? We heard a presentation from Samuel and he touched on points that are commonly made by many in the Protestant community. I would note that the Westminster confession of faith, which is used by many Calvinists, says that faith is the alone instrument of justification. So it’s faith only yet it is not alone in the person justified but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces and is no dead faith but worketh by love. So the Westminster confession acknowledges that saving faith works by love, it needs to incorporate love. It’s formed faith. Many Protestant formulations use the expression we are justified by grace alone through faith alone. So does the Catholic church agree with that? Well, we’ve got Ephesians two eight and our Bibles too, which says, for by grace you are saved through faith. So we believe in justification by grace.

The Council of Trent in its decree on justification said this. This is from chapter eight. It said, we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously meaning by grace because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works merit the grace of justification for if it is by grace it is not now by works otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no more grace. So the Council of Trent agrees nothing preceding justification merits it and consequently we’re justified by grace in the joint declaration on the doctrine of justification that the Catholic church signed a number of years ago with the Lutheran World Federation and later several other groups, it says We together, we meaning Catholics and Lutherans confess by grace alone in faith in Christ’s save and work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to do good works.

So the Catholic church agrees that we’re justified by grace alone. Well what about faith alone? Well, here I have to make a little bit of a terminology note. Scripture never says that we’re justified by faith alone. It says a lot about being justified by faith, but it doesn’t use the language faith alone. That phrase only appears once in scripture where James says that you see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. So faith alone is not the language of scripture. But I’m not here to quarrel about words, though I am here to talk about their meaning to end quarrels and understood correctly. Catholics can affirm faith alone according to the annex, to the joint declaration which the Catholic church signed justification takes place by grace alone, by faith alone the person is justified apart from works. And it’s not just the joint declaration that says that Pope Benedict six said this a few years ago, he said Luther’s phrase, faith alone is true if it is not opposed to faith in charity in love.

So it is that in the letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification that St. Paul speaks of faith that works through love. So the Catholic church agrees that we are justified through faith alone understood correctly. Now that may surprise some of our listeners who come from the Protestant community because they’re often told that the Council of Trent condemned faith alone, but it actually didn’t. If you read the decree on justification from Trent, this is Canon nine, what it says is this. If anyone shall say that by faith alone, the emus is justified so that he would understand. So it’s specifying a meaning for this phrase. If he understands that nothing else is required to cooperate in order unto the obtaining of the grace of justification and that it is not in any respect necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, then that’s what they reject.

So they’re not objecting to the formula of faith alone own. They’re objecting to a particular understanding of it. And since it mentioned that the kind of faith alone they’re rejecting is a kind that says you don’t need to do anything with your will, they’re not even condemning fiducial faith because you use your will to trust God. So what they’re condemning is the idea that we are saved by intellectual faith alone merely believe in Christian doctrine. And there are multiple Orthodox Catholic authors including doctors of the church who used the faith alone formula prior to the reformation like St. Augustine who lived in the fifth century. And St. Thomas Aquinas who lived in the 13th century. Both of them among others, used the formula faith alone. They just clarified that it’s faith which works through love or formed faith. So formed faith is, as I said, it involves love as well as trust and intellectual belief.

And we see multiple passages in the New Testament that underscore this. I mentioned Galatians five, six where Paul says what counts is faith working through love? Also, in one Corinthians 13 he said, if I have faith to remove mountains but don’t have love, I’m nothing, it benefits me nothing. And in one John three 14, John says, we know that we have passed over from death to life because we love the brothers. And then he says, the one who does not love remains in death. So love is an essential component of saving faith. And you know who agreed with that? Well John Calvin. Calvin viewed unformed faith that is faith without love as unworthy of the name faith. And in his institutes of the Christian religion, he criticizes those who would use the word faith to mean intellectual faith because he says by this, they would deform faith by depriving it of love.

And as I noted, the Westminster confession agreed with that. It said that faith that justifies is faith that works by love. And a lot of people today have agreed with that. That’s what the joint declaration on the doctrine of justification says. It was signed by the Catholic church in 1999 and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999, the World Methodist Council joined in 2006. The Anglican Consultative Council approved it in 2016 and the world communion of Reformed churches approved it in 2017. So consequently we can agree that man is justified by grace alone through faith alone, provided you understand that correctly and that’s something we can all celebrate.

Host:

Alright, thank you Jimmy for that opening and Samuel as well. So now we’re going to drop it to the first part is debate rebuttal. And Samuel, you’re back in the seat for your five minute rebuttal and so lemme bring you back up and I’ll start your time when you begin to speak.

Nesan:

Well thank you. Thanks very much Jimmy for that opening. I really appreciate the clarity and charity in which Jimmy can tell. And so let’s go back to my own statement. In my opening statement I highlighted three say This is a gift of God which is the merit of Christ apart from works. And as I heard the, I don’t think there was anything in there that challenged that first premise at all. And so the words of Jimmy himself, yeah, I celebrate the fact that that first premise is granted. Plus of course we are having a disagreement on concept, which that is, we can maybe explore that towards the cross-examination. I wouldn’t celebrate the fact that there’s no disagreement at least right now on that first point. Number two, fate is evidenced by an accompanied by good works. If you remember Jimmy’s opening statement, I love the fact that he cited First John three 13, I believe he cited.

That is we know we have passed over and the reason we know we have passed over, and I can’t remember the exact words, is because we love indeed that if the fact that love becomes an indicator, it becomes the evidence that we’ve passed over from death to life that we’ve passed over from a state of unbelief to a state of belief, then that’s great. That’s something that we don’t necessarily disagree about. And I also perhaps should state this in the larger context, that this is not a debate between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in practices and all that. This is specifically dealing with the topic of justification. And so I’m limiting and confining my discussion to the topic alone. Now what about the third premise or the third contention that is this saving fate alone is the basis of our justification before God here. Once again, I celebrate the fact that Jimmy says that, well we shouldn’t battle our words, we shouldn’t dispute our words as St.

Paul mentioned, but rather we should deal with substance. And when we look at substance, we should ask ourselves, well does the Catholic church, or at least in this case, Jimmy agreed with us that fate alone is the basis upon which we stand justified. And based on that presentation that he made, I don’t see any disagreements on that third point as well. In fact, what was really interesting is that he cited Pope Benedict 16 in a recent statement where he said, quote being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ and this suffices further observances are no longer necessary. And this is what Pope Benedict says, and I quote for this reason, Luther Free’s faith alone is true if it is not opposed to faith in charity in love. And so here I have one minor concern and that is what does Pope Benedict mean when he says faith in charity?

And perhaps this is just me not being under clear on what he means because he does go on in a next sentence to say, faith is looking at Christ and trusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ that we can agree on. But if faith means conformed to Christ, well then positionally I may be conformed based on my union in Christ, I may be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, but in experience from a sanctification point, I’m not there yet. Is Pop Benedict saying that therefore that that would experiential sanctification constitutes what is true faith? Well, I’m not sure and I do not want to be guilty of misreading him on that one. But if it means that faith alone is truly looking at Christ and trusting what’s after Christ, then I think that we’ve got a lot of agreement here as far as the topic of the debate is concerned. Thank you.

Host:

Alright, thank you. Thank you Sam for that rebuttal. And Jim, you’re right back in the seat for your five minute rebuttal of Sam’s opening statement. I start your time and you begin to speak.

Akin:

Sounds good. So I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to find so much area of agreement and Samuel’s right, that we always need to be careful to make sure that we’re understanding things correctly, at least as far as this subject of justification goes. One issue that he raised was how does the Catholic church understand sanctification and what would Pope Benedict say that you need to be completely experientially sanctified in order to be justified because none of us are completely experientially sanctified. And the answer is no. You don’t have to be perfect in this life. The Catholic church is fully aware of that. That’s why we got the sacrament of confession. So the way the Catholic church understands this is you come to God by faith and if you have faith that works through charity to use St. Paul’s phrase, if you have faith formed by love, then you’re justified and you don’t need to do any good works to get into that state.

Just like that quote from the Council of Trent that I read, you’re justified, God makes you righteous. He imputes Christ’s righteousness to you, he also transforms you and he then helps to purify you over the course of the Christian life in the Protestant community that after initial justification phase where he purifies you is often called sanctification, which comes from a root that means to make holy. In the Catholic church we also use the term sanctification, but we also refer to that second phase as another justification, as ongoing justification as you grow in righteousness, in terms of experiential righteousness. So we don’t have to be perfect in this life, we’re not, but the Catholic church certainly does not understand that you have to be perfect in order to be just before God. God takes away all that pertains to the nature of sin. So you may still have disordered inclinations that would lead you to sin, that tempt you, but when God justifies you, he takes away sin itself from your soul so that you no longer have it. And consequently, I think there is a lot of room here where we can find agreement. If Samuel or the others in the q and a period would like to or in the cross-examination period would like to pose particular challenges, I’ll be more than happy to explain the Catholic perspective on them. I

Host:

Alright. Alright, cool. Thank you guys for the rebuttal. So now we’re about to enter our cross-examination portion of this debate, and once again, this will be a 15 minute cross X for both parties to get 15 minutes each to ask questions. And so we are going to start it off with Samuel, which are 15 minute cross-examination of Jimmy and Trent. Obviously Dr. Steven boy should be able to jump in if you feel you need to or you desire to, but this should be a fun cross-ex. If you can answer your opponent’s question with a simple yes or no, please do that. You do not want to bog your opponent’s time down. But with that said, Samuel, you’re up first for your 15 minute cross-ex of Trent and Jimmy,

Nesan:

Thank you Marlin and thank you Jimmy for that rebuttal period. Yeah, trust. I’m still audible. Alright, yeah, I just want to, in this cross-examination, want to focus specifically on clarification just to make sure that we understand one another. So I’m having difficulty hearing is my audio connected? Okay, great. Yeah, let me start with the first question just to see whether we are on the same page. In Galatians Paul in chapter five informs the Galatians that if they try to be circumcised to be justified before God, they have fallen from grace. So do you view that if one keeps the mosaic law for the purpose of attaining justification, that that would amount to the heresy or the anathema that Paul proclaims to the Galatians in Galatians one eight of believing in a different gospel?

Akin:

Yes.

Nesan:

Thank you. So do you think that that applies only to circumcision or by default to charity as well? Because charity is entailed in the mosaic law.

Akin:

So here we’re getting into an area that is not Catholic church teaching where there’s the church allows biblical scholars to have a range of opinion. So I can tell you my opinion, my understanding is, and I wrote a book where I discussed this, but my understanding is if you’re obeying the mosaic law because you think you need to do that in order to be right with God, then that is another gospel. It’s the gospel of the Mosaic law, not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, it is true that charity is commanded in the Mosaic law, but charity is also commanded by what Paul calls the law of Christ. And so we’re supposed to be charitable, not because the mosaic law says to, but because Christ himself says to. And so consequently, if I’m trying to be charitable to people because Jesus Christ tells me I need to be, then I’m obeying Christ. I’m not obeying the mosaic law, and so I’m not falling afoul of the anathema because I’m not obeying the mosaic law to try to be saved. I’m trying to do the will of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

Nesan:

No thank you. That’s really clear.

Boyce:

I think Trent was jumping in. Samuel Trent was going to

Nesan:

Chime. Sorry, go ahead please.

Boyce:

I can’t hear Trent either.

Nesan:

Hey Trent, are you muted?

Horn:

Sorry, it was my bad. Yeah, yeah. I would say just because someone, it is another gospel to attempt to be justified by something that God did not command for the new covenant name of the Mosaic law. It doesn’t follow that a part of the gospel is to be obedient to the things God did command for those who are under the new covenant, such as charity, obedience to Christ commands, things like that

Nesan:

Wonder. Okay. In that case, just to clarify from Trent, would you say there are things that Jesus taught that are not directly or indirectly taken from the Mosaic law?

Horn:

Are there things that Jesus taught that are not taken from the OSA law,

Nesan:

His commands, sorry, his commands? Are there any of Christ’s commands that are not directly or indirectly or derived from the mosaic law?

Horn:

Sure. Well, the command to be baptized, the command to receive him in the Eucharist are not found in the mosaic law.

Nesan:

Do you see that the Eucharist is in a sense derived from the Mosaic law in that you have the Eucharist represented in Genesis, in the Passover feast in that it’s a continuation of that same trajectory?

Horn:

It’s certainly prefigured in the Old Testament and Christ is its fulfillment because Paul says that Christ is our Paschal lamb who has been sacrificed, but it itself is prefigured by the Passover. It’s not identical to the same thing.

Nesan:

Yeah, agreed. It’s definitely derived. So that’s why I say it’s derived from the Mosaic law. So in that sense, wouldn’t Christ command of charity itself by that same standard or by that same understanding be derived from the mosaic law to lift God with all the heart, soul and mind and to live neighbor as oneself?

Horn:

Well, I think, and I’d like to hear Jimmy’s thoughts on this as well. I think we’re dealing with a little bit of a composition fallacy here that just because Christ commands us to be obedient to something that can be found in the mosaic law, it doesn’t follow therefore that you should be obedient to the mosaic law for salvation.

Akin:

Yeah. Trent is right. There’s a danger of a composition fallacy here. Just because the Mosaic law says something doesn’t mean that’s what Paul’s talking about when he tells those who would want to be justified by circumcision that they’ve fallen from grace. You could use exactly the same logic to say, well, the Mosaic law says you need to love your neighbor. So those of you who are trying to love your neighbor have fallen from grace If you’re trying to love your neighbor, no, that’s not what Paul’s talking about. He clearly expects us to love our neighbors. That’s something Jesus commanded us. So Paul’s problem is not with loving your neighbor or taking the Eucharist or anything like that. Paul’s problem is if you think that the mosaic law and obedience to it will save you, that’s a different gospel because the mosaic law taken as a whole does not save people. That doesn’t mean the mosaic law doesn’t contain good things that we need to do, love our neighbor and be baptized and receive communion even though it doesn’t mention the Christian sacraments, but they are prefigured in it. What Paul’s objecting to is trust in the mosaic law itself for salvation,

Horn:

Like someone who loved their neighbor just because it says that in Leviticus, not because that’s part of the command we’re under now the law of Christ.

Nesan:

I think there may be misunderstanding in the way that perhaps I framed the question. Thank you for clarifying that. So what I’m suggesting is that if one says that the mosaic law commands charity or let’s go with the command of Christ, Christ says that I need to love my neighbor as myself so that if I use that as a basis in saying that because Christ commanded it, and if I don’t love my neighbor as myself, I cannot make it into the kingdom of God, therefore I’m trying to be justified by God, by obeying the command of Christ. Would you say that that falls under the same issue as well since Christ, again, you called it a composition fallacy. I’m not quite sure it is, but it’s derived from the mosaic law and that Christ is simply explaining what a mosaic law is. Sorry for the long question.

Akin:

No problem. So in order to be saved, one of the requirements for justifying faith because it incorporates love, is repentance of sin. You can’t love God if you’re hating your brother, for example, as St. John says. So you need to repent of your sin in order to have justifying faith. And if Christ then says, love your neighbor, well that doesn’t mean I need to love my neighbor to get into a state of justification. He puts me in that state and good works then flow from that state of justification. Now, if I then do something gravely contrary to love of neighbor, like let’s say I murder my neighbor knowingly and deliberately, well then I have unrepented because you can’t murder your neighbor and still have love for God as John indicates. So if I then turn on my neighbor and literally stab him in the back and puncture his heart and kill him, I’m no longer loving God. I no longer have justifying faith, but it wasn’t merit or obedience that put me into the state of justification.

Nesan:

So in other words, just to clarify and follow up from that, it’s that once I’m justified, I need to keep on producing. Or would you say it is that the justification itself leads to these good works coming out?

Akin:

It leads to the good works because we have the love of God poured into our heart and love is the essence of good works, which Paul says in Ephesians, God created us in Christ for those good works. So obviously they’re meant to flow from us being in Christ, which happens at the moment of justification.

Nesan:

I love that. Yeah. So just following through from that, do you believe that this state of justification which begins is a once for all justification, that because we are justified, he who began a good work in us will bring it to completion and perfection. Do you see that as being a, which leads to the end? It doesn’t make sense. I’m sorry, the question is phrased that No,

Akin:

I understand the core concept. No, I don’t believe in perseverance of the saints or eternal security because we need ongoing forgiveness. That’s why in the Central Christian prayer that Jesus himself gave us the Lord’s prayer. We petition, God forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors, and that means if we commit new sins, we need new forgiveness. So this idea that you sometimes hear in some Protestant circles that you’ve been forgiven all of your sins past, present, and future does not correspond to the biblical worldview. And there are other passages I could illustrate it with, but I don’t want to chew up your time, so I’ll just cite the Lord’s prayer.

Horn:

And I just want to a quick add to that, that I also reject eternal security and that I wouldn’t follow from the passage you cited. That’s Philippians one, six. Paul is not talking about all believers, he’s talking about the Philippians in particular. He’s confident of that because in the next verse he says, it is right for me to think this way about all of you. I hold you in my heart. You’re my partners in God’s grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. He had a confidence in them because of the works that they had exhibited to him, not just because they were justified.

Nesan:

Okay, thank you. So let me move on then to the question of if let’s say one does, I mean one is justified by faith and we’re not talking about any intellectual ascent. We’re talking about saving faith and they fall into a state of mortal sin. How do they get back to do they need to? How did they get back to a state of justification again?

Akin:

So the ordinary way, and this is not just the Catholic understanding, but it’s also for example, the Lutheran understanding and the Anglican understanding and the Methodist understanding in order to enter a state of justification, the ordinary way it happens is three things. You repent, you believe the gospel and you get baptized and God puts you in a state of justification. That’s the ordinary way. It doesn’t mean that it’s the only way. So if someone is prevented from being baptized, for example, but they otherwise have justifying faith, they’ve got faith formed by charity, that alone puts them in a state of justification, even if they don’t have baptism, for example. Well, the church fathers referred to the sacrament of confession as the second plank after baptism. The idea is like you’ve been in a shipwreck, you grab a first plank to save your life, that’s baptism.

If you let go of that plank through mortal sin, you grab confession as a second plank to save you after the shipwreck. So if someone is justified and then commits, I mortal sin, they un repent and go back to not loving God, then you need to essentially do the same things. The first time you got justified was repent, believe and a sacrament. But since baptism is irre repeatable the second time and any subsequent times, it’s repentance, faith and go to confession, that’s the ordinary way it’s done. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only way. Just like an unbaptized person who has faith formed by charity is in a state of justification. If you re repent, let’s say you’re prevented from going to confession, if you re repent and you have faith formed by charity, that of itself puts you back into a state of justification.

Nesan:

And so if I do those things, which is to repent, to do a confession, I suppose you might add penance to that as well because that comes under the state of penance. Yeah. Sorry, were you going to clarify?

Akin:

Well, penance and confession are two names for the same sacrament and they’re both different parts of the sacrament, but yeah, but either however you want to frame it.

Nesan:

Right. And so one, oh, sorry, please go ahead. Yeah,

Akin:

Well I was just going to say it’s essentially the same sacrament, and so it’s not like you’re adding something in addition to confession as a sacrament.

Nesan:

Yeah, thank you. Thanks for the clarification. And so if one death confession and penance in that sense, is it certain on the basis of what they have done that God would now forgive them for the mortal sins they have committed?

Akin:

Well, we have God’s promise of grace. I mean, Jesus told the disciples on the day of the resurrection, whoever sins you forgive, they’re forgiven. Whoever sins you retained, they’re retained. And so yeah, we’ve got God’s promise on that. And as long as you’re sincere in your repentance, then when you go to confession, God’s going to forgive you.

Horn:

I would also say that,

Nesan:

Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Trent.

Horn:

Phenomenologically, I would say the Catholic view makes more sense. If you believe salvation cannot be lost and you believe you belong to the elect, but you’ve committed a very grave sin naturally, most Christians will ask God for forgiveness of that sin even though they don’t ask for every single sin, they commit to be forgiven. Yet I wonder why ask for that when the sins have already been forgiven and your status hasn’t changed?

Nesan:

Yeah. Sorry, just to follow up on what you just said about the Catholic view making more sense, the scripture stage, and I mentioned this in my third point, that it is eternal. There’s an eternal aspect to justification. If eternal life can be lost trend, in what way is eternal life eternal?

Horn:

It’s eternal because of what it’s ultimately oriented towards. It’s oriented towards life with God that it is. Forget the phrase that there is a Baptist scholar, Dale Moody, who gave a discussion about this. I’d love to find the quote because oh, he says it right here. He says they work with the false assumption that the adjective eternal is an adverb as if it says the brother eternally has life. It is the life that is eternal, not one’s possession of it. And he’s a Baptist who rejects perseverance of the saints his work. I would definitely recommend the word of truth.

Akin:

Yeah. Essentially what Dale Moody is essentially what Dale Moody is saying is that eternal in this case applies to the quality of the life because it unites you with the eternal God. It doesn’t refer to the length of the life, although if you remain united with the eternal God, you remain in eternal life.

Nesan:

Well, thank you Trent and Jimmy.

Host:

All right. Thank you for that cross X. All right. So Trent or Jimmy, you’re up next for your 15 minute cross mix cross X of Samuel and Dr. Boyce.

Akin:

Okay. So we’ve established, at least on the core issues of justification, what sounds like a considerable degree of harmony. You’ve raised some issues that I hope our answers you found acceptable. But one of the things I’d like to do is probe a aspects of the Catholic view of salvation that are sometimes treated as disqualifying Catholics from having a true gospel, even though they are believed by various Protestant groups. Like for example, and I’d be interested in having both Samuel Stephen weigh in on this, but for example, sometimes you’ll hear people use a dictionary, they’ll use a definition of works as anything you do, and so they’ll say, well, anything you do is a work, and therefore baptism is something you do. So baptism is a work, and if you think you’re justified in baptism, then you’re teaching a works gospel. Now, there are problems with this. Anything you do view of what constitutes a work, because we’re told to believe and we’re told to repent. And belief and repentance are things you do. So there’s obviously something wrong with this definition. Martin Luther was adamant that baptism is not a work. In fact, if you read his longer catechism, he’s actually kind of insulting towards people who believe this.

Absolutely, yeah. And so he’s adamant it’s not a work because it’s based on the promise of God and you’re simply accepting what God has promised. So given that Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and even Presbyterians in the case of elect infants, would say that baptism justifies you. Would you agree that the fact Catholics believe in baptismal regeneration does not mean that Catholics are teaching a false gospel?

Nesan:

Yeah, I think the question of baptismal regeneration is a issue that is, I mean, even in Lutheranism, it’s there. So it is not something that is uniquely Catholic in that sense. And I wanted, since you mentioned Luther’s view, if I could elaborate a little bit more on Luther’s view. I think for Luther, both faith and baptism were not works for a very simple reason is that they were done unto you. You are a passive recipient of both faith and baptism. In the case of faith. Faith, it is a gift of God not of works. So fate is given to me repentance. In second Timothy chapter two, I can’t remember the last few words. It says that perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to knowledge of the church. And so for Luther, he’s of fate and repentance as something that is being granted to a person by God. And the same thing, he just applied to baptism, which is that because of infant baptism, and by the way, I was infant baptized. Absolutely.

Akin:

Sorry. Yeah, I want to make sure that I have the opportunity to ask some more questions. So am I understanding you correctly that you do not believe that if you say someone is baptism regenerated, that that is not a false gospel? Is that your position?

Nesan:

Yes, because if I say baptismal regeneration is a false gospel, I would have to say that.

Akin:

Very good. Okay. Steven, would you agree with that? I would affirm that obviously as an Anglican, we believe that regeneration takes place in baptism so that it is not a work and the dependence, I don’t know anybody that’s depending the issue here is the word dependence. You talked about work. You’ve given me all I wanted. I’d like to ask about a new distinction now. So one of the things that Martin Luther believed is that it is possible to lose your salvation. He thought that would happen. If you lose your faith or apostatize, then you’re going to lose your salvation. So he didn’t believe that we’re forgiven for all our future sins, including any future apostasy. Similarly, in the Anglican communion, it’s traditional to acknowledge the possibility of loss of salvation, at least through the sin of apostasy. And the same thing is true in the Methodist tradition.

And the same thing is true in the Pentecostal tradition where it tends to be a little broader of some kind of very grave sin, and it’s true of free will Baptists and General Baptists. So we have within the Protestant community a broad selection of people who acknowledge that it is possible to lose one salvation through some kind of sin. Sometimes it’s limited to apostasy, sometimes it’s broader than that. And that’s exactly what the Catholic church says. It is possible to lose our salvation. So we haven’t been forgiven of our future sins yet. Would you say that all those Protestants who believe it’s possible to lose salvation like the Catholic church says it is, are they teaching a false gospel or does that mean that they’re not teaching a false gospel on this basis and that the Catholic church is also not teaching a false gospel on this basis?

Nesan:

Yeah, all the Protestant churches and the Catholic church that teaches that one can lose their salvation, that’s not a false gospel in and of itself, that alone. Good.

Akin:

Okay. Steven, do you agree with that, Steven?

Nesan:

Yeah, yeah. I wouldn’t call it a false

Akin:

Gospel. Okay. Let’s talk then about the idea that, let’s talk about one that’s often pitted. We haven’t mentioned it yet tonight, but oftentimes you’ll hear people say things like purgatory infringes on the work saving work of Christ, and it makes the Catholic church teaching a false gospel. Okay, well, that’s not the Catholic view on the Catholic view purgatory. What it does according to the catechism of the Catholic church is it purifies us of our remaining disorder desires. So what’s called sanctification in the Protestant community heals us as we mature in Christ over the course of the Christian life so that we become more experientially righteous. But very few people are perfectly experientially righteous at the time of death. They tend to have some remaining disordered desires, and yet we know nothing IPU is going to enter the heavenly city. So by the time we’re in heaven, we’re not going to be tempted anymore.

We’re not going to have disordered desires anymore. And so between death and heaven, something must happen that gives us freedom from temptation and makes us experientially righteous. So essentially purgatory is the final step in sanctification. Church doesn’t teach, it takes time. In fact, it actually casts some doubt on that idea, but something needs to happen. And all of this flows from Jesus Christ, just like our sanctification in this life is empowered by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. So the final step of sanctification or purgatory is also empowered by the cross of Christ and thus does not compete with the cross of Christ. It’s something God does to us. He purifies us. So with that understanding, many people in the Protestant community, especially in recent times, have become more open to purgatory like CS Lewis, and he died in 1963, but he said, our souls demand purgatory, don’t they? And similarly, there have been more recent authors in the Protestant community who acknowledged this. So I would be curious to note, do the two of you think that the idea, number one, do you agree that something needs to happen between death and heaven to give us the pure we need to be with God, as Hebrews says? And secondly, if you acknowledge that, would you agree that Catholic teaching on purgatory, as I’ve just described, it does not amount to a false gospel?

Nesan:

So let me,

Akin:

Steve Samuel, you first.

Nesan:

Thank you. Thanks, Jimmy. Yeah, that is always before Anglican anyway. Well, sorry I couldn’t help it, but yeah, let’s go for the first question. The first question is, sorry, I lost. The first question is,

Akin:

Okay, first question is, yeah, would you agree that at least for most people, something, I’m not saying it takes time or what it involves, but something needs to happen where God gives the person whatever’s lacking in their experiential righteousness to complete their sanctification?

Nesan:

Absolutely not. I reject that because do you what takes place? Yes, I do. Yes.

Akin:

What happens in your view?

Nesan:

Yes. So I’m pacing this off of Romans eight. Do you mind if I read it and I’ll read it real quick? Yes. So I’ll just explain it, save time. So in Romans eight, sorry, Romans seven, what Paul does is he talks about the struggle with the body and that even though he wants to do the good that he wants to do, but it’s the body of depth that he describes it, that is preventing him to do that and almost bringing about is a conflict with the body. What takes place at death that the body is taken away and the same Jesus, the same spirit, rather than raise Jesus from the dead in Romans eight is said to raise our bodies to the state of glorification. So to me, what takes place is death itself. This body is thrown away and I’m replaced with a glorified body that Christ had. Death to me is what, for example, complete. Complete enables me to reach complete sanctification.

Akin:

In that case. I have a follow-up question, and then I’ll turn to Steven. So it would seem that the position you just articulated would mean that our sin is due entirely to our physical body, because you said if our physical body goes away, then our spirits are pure. So it seems like you’re saying that our body is really the cause of all of our temptations, and without a body, every spirit will act perfectly. Is that your understanding?

Nesan:

No, not at all. Because the people in a disembodied state in Shao or hads that are still sinning in the awakeness. So I think that positionally, just to be clarify for the audience, positionally, we are sanctified by faith. That’s a done deal. But we’re talking about experientially, we’re not there yet. I believe that the putting away of the body, the same spirit that raised the body of raised Christ from the dead, gives us a glorified body that enables us to be glorified, that we are not tempted with the same way that we were in this body of death, as Paul describes it.

Akin:

Okay, so I want to make sure, if I understand correctly, so I die, my body goes away. Does God have to do anything to my soul at that point to make me experientially sanctified?

Nesan:

No.

Akin:

So I’m just automatically sanctified the moment my body goes away, God does nothing. In that case, it would seem like I’m not talking positionally, I’m talking experientially.

Nesan:

Yes. Experientially experiential. Yes.

Akin:

Okay. So in that case, it would seem like you’re saying our sinful nature is due only to our physical body, so that as soon as that drops out, we become experientially righteous perfectly. If that’s the case,

Nesan:

No, that’s

Akin:

Not what I’m saying. Okay. I’m not going to be able to chase this too many times. I’ve asked for several clarifications already. I understood you to be saying that you seem to agree at each step. No,

Nesan:

If I could, okay, go

Akin:

Ahead. One more time.

Nesan:

Yeah. So the reason you see the soul is tainted by sin because of my participation in Adam original sin, as well as my body. So it’s not just the body, it’s body and soul. Body, the soul. I’ve been made alive in Christ. I’m a new creature, but I’m still in a body of death. And so the temptations that I’m facing is through the body that the day that I die, that temptation is going away. I’m seeing him when we see him, we shall be as he is,

Horn:

Are the souls. Samuel are the souls of the damned tempted to sin after, but before the resurrection of the dead.

Nesan:

It entirely depends on whether they were sanctified before life, before death or not, for example. So not sanctified by the spirit in hell are still in Hades. Yeah, no. Yes. Still tempted. They’re still tempted because the soul hasn’t been made. Right.

Akin:

So in that case, it would seem that it is not simply the physical body that is the source of temptation. I really want to get to Steven’s view. Steven, would you agree that something needs to happen between death and heaven to make us and our spirits in particular perfectly righteous experientially? Yeah. I think that positionally, I agree with Samuel on this because there is an aspect where there’s more than just the body. We also are removed from the enemy’s temptation, the world’s temptation. So we have the removal of multiple temptations. I don’t think temptation is just simply from our sin nature. We have an outside and an inside temptation. Paul, in Romans seven is battling the internal temptation of his body, but that’s not the only enemy. Okay, so yes or no. I want to understand this. Does God do anything to our souls upon death to make them perfect? Let us see Jesus for example. Does that make us it’s transformation? Okay, yes, there’s a transformation. Then you’ve agreed to a version of the doctrine of purgatory. So would you say that people who agree to at least that much a purgatory are teaching a false gospel?

I don’t think they’re false gospels. I think they’re good. They’re good. That’s all I need. Samuel, would you say like Steven just did that God transforms us when we see Jesus to become like him. Would you say that that is something that is done by God to us when we see Jesus, he transforms us to be like him upon death. Would you agree to that? Okay. Then you’ve also, hang on, I have an answer also. I thought you said yes.

Nesan:

No, no, no, I did not. I said that it did entirely depend on what version of purgatory we’re talking about. If someone just believes there’s an intermediate state where something happens, that’s not a denial of the gospel, but if it rejects the finished work of Christ, then it might be, well,

Akin:

I’ve explained the sense of purgatory in which I’m using the term. I’m not importing any old theories from speculations of theologians.

Host:

Alright guys, that’s fine. Just

Akin:

What I’ve said. It sounds like we’re on the same page.

Host:

Alright, that’s time right there. Alright, so thank you guys for that cross-ex. Very, very fun to listen to. Very entertaining, very educational as well, and I appreciate the decorum between you guys as well. And so now what we’re going to do, we’re going to jump into this q and a. We’ve got a 15 minute q and a to wrap up this portion of the debate. So if I can get this thing off the screen here, if I could find it. There it is. Alright. Alright. So we’ve got some questions here. We have a super chat coming from faith Refine, and this question is for Jimmy. Thank you for the support faith you find appreciated. Jimmy, if we are not forgiven for future sins, must we be in a state of total repentance or perfect sanctification when we die?

Akin:

The Catholic understanding would be you need to be in fundamental repentance. You need to have love for God. That transcends love for any created thing. If I love ice cream more than I love God, that’s not saving faith. And we can have temptations that you could quibble about. Well, do you have total repentance? If you’re still tempted, you have the kind of repentance you need. By the way, could you put the question back up again? I want to make sure I address all the parts

Host:

Of it. Yeah, I’m just sending it and make sure it’s on this side here.

Akin:

Okay. So you need to have fundamental repentance that makes God your highest priority, but you don’t have to be perfect in terms of your sanctification when you die. That’s what the function of purgatory is. It’s just the final step of sanctification. If you’re not already completely purified, God will purify you by his mercy. And Pope Benedict actually understood purgatory as a transforming encounter with Christ where the fiery love of Christ burns away all of our impurities, leaving our souls as pure gold.

Host:

Alright, Trent, do you have anything to add? No. Alright. Steven and Samuel, you also have an opportunity to respond to this question as well or something Jimmy said as well.

Nesan:

Well, I’ll let Steven take this one.

Boyce:

No, you can go to the next one.

Host:

The next one. All right, copy that. All right, so we have a question coming from, all right, so thanks officer little play on words there. Alright, question for the Protestants. If repentance or confession are necessary for justification, how can you still say it is by faith alone? Doesn’t the word alone means something in is in isolation?

Nesan:

No, I think that this is the problem with sometimes the catchphrases that comes out of the solars and tulip. And so we use the words, I mean Steven and I had a three hour discussion on sola scriptura and it’s not that simple as just saying the Bible alone, there’s a little bit more to unpack that. So what I’ll say is this, when we say that we are saved by faith alone, we mean that faith is a gift of God. It is an initiative of God, it is monistic, not synergistic. And so yes, we need faith to be saved. Yes, we need repentance to be saved, but both faith and repentances have demonstrated is a gift of God both based on second Timothy two and Efficience two was eight to nine.

Boyce:

So we would say that genuine faith is not alone. That’s the issue with these alone statements. That’s why I don’t use ’em because they’re misleading in that regard. And this is an example of that where there’s a misunderstanding. So many of these terms get turned on each other on the reform side or on the Catholic side or on the Protestant side terms get works or faith well you’re depending on works, we’re depending on faith. You start throwing these catch phrases like this in there it gets confusing. We don’t believe faith alone stays alone. We believe that there’s an activity to that, that faith is active, that faith is moving. There’s more to it than just you assert something, which is what Jimmy was describing. It’s not just an intellectual faith. There’s something that’s more to it because it won’t stay alone once it is put into action.

Akin:

And I would agree with that. I think that this illustrates the difficulty with using these alone formulas because they’re inevitably more complex than the formula gives the impression when you start unpacking them. And so I would agree, I think that’s one reason why faith alone is not the language of the Bible and I think it’s wise of Catholics not to use that formula because it’s intrinsically misleading but nevertheless not to quarrel about words. We can agree with it, it can have a legitimate sense provided it’s understood correctly. So we’re in agreement on that.

Horn:

Yeah, I would say a problem I have with this, and you’re right, it’s often misunderstood because you could say, well justify by faith alone, good works are present. The works are not what justify, but they are a necessary evidential condition. If the works are not there, it would show one does not have saving faith. I think my problem is that the Bible doesn’t use the term saving faith, it only talks about faith. You quoted Luther saying faith cannot help doing good works constantly, but biblical language, it’s not faith that does works per se. It’s though it does reference faith working in charity really it’s the person who is faithful that does good works. And so this will lead to the question for Protestants to answer, okay, well the works don’t justify, but they still need to be there to show you are justified. What works are those? And I think that gets into a lot of thorny questions.

Host:

Alright. All right. Thank you guys. And we have another question here. Thank you for the question. Works considered to be works of the law or is it good deeds, charity and love? It doesn’t say who was two, but Jimmy and Trent, if you guys want to take this one first.

Akin:

So the term works that Paul uses has been understood differently. Sometimes it’s understood to refer specifically to actions done in order to fulfill the Mosaic law and sometimes it has been understood to be used to refer to just a good deed in the Catholic tradition. There have been advocates of both viewpoints that when Paul says he’s talking about when he says we’re saved by faith and not works, what he means is works of the mosaic law. Some others have said or added to that. And also we’re not saved by good deeds, we’re not justified by good deeds. We don’t do good deeds to get into a state of justification. They flow from the state of justification. So both options, both interpretations are available. My personal opinion is that if you study Romans and Galatians carefully, when Paul uses the phrase works and doesn’t add a clarifier to it, he almost invariably is talking about works of the Mosaic law like circumcision.

That’s his big test case. That’s why he brings, it’s not be kind to your neighbor, it’s circumcision. He’s talking almost exclusively about works of the mosaic law. When he wants to connote good works, he typically adds a qualifier to it like good. So in Ephesians two for example, he says you’re justified by grace and not by works meaning works of the Mosaic law. He’s just been talking about how Jews and Gentiles are united together in the church, but God created us in Christ for good works. So there’s a difference between the initial works he talks about without a qualifier and the good works he recommends for us. But it’s true either way you go. We don’t do works of the mosaic law to get into a state of justification and we don’t do good works to get into a state of justification. It’s a gift of God.

Host:

All right Steven. And

Nesan:

Yeah, I’ll just respond to that by saying that I don’t see, I have to respectfully disagree with my more esteemed interlocutor here, that there’s a distinction between good works, inefficient two and eight between verse nine and 10. And the reason I think they’re dealing with the same thing, of course I do realize that Paul May be alluding to the mosaic law earlier when he says it’s not by works because he does reference J and Gentile. But if you distinguish the two, then it doesn’t flow that we’re not saved by works, but that Paul goes on to say, God created us for good works. There must be some sort of synonym between the works in the first case and the second.

Host:

Alright. All right. Steven or Trent?

Horn:

Yeah, and I would just disagree. I would say that Paul is contrasting, he’s noting that there are works of the law or works of Torah. It might be another way to look at it somehow. Romans two six uses the Greek word works, but it’s just talking about gobble will reward glory and immortality to those who do good works. In Ephesians two, it’s not just before verses eight, it’s also verses 11 through 14 and verses 11 through 15 talks about how they’ve broken down the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in his flesh. The law of commandments and ordinances I would say there that we are talking about it is not works of Torah that bring you into the covenant as they once did maybe in the past. So there’s a distinction made between the Jew and Greek distinction and the necessity of the mosaic law. But Paul is very clear though that through God’s grace he did make good works for us to do.

Host:

Yeah,

Boyce:

I would say that the good works are a product of the faith. They don’t proceed, they follow, but he also in other places, like in Titus says it’s not by works of righteousness rather than using good works or terms like that that we have done. But according to mercy, he saved us. So there’s also an aspect to where I think if we get lost in the word works here too much, whether it’s mosaic obedience because that would be a dependence on mosaic law over against the gospel of Christ and its message by faith. And then also self-produced good deeds because at the end of the day, almost all good deeds that are produced by works can be found somewhere in the moral law or even in the neighborly laws that you find in the Levitical stance. So at the end of the day, I don’t know if we can separate those two things. They all end up finding themselves back in Torah anyway, we’re defining the character of God because that’s all the law is to begin with is God character put on display. The only part we could really separate that from is ceremonial laws or perhaps sacrificial laws, but when it comes to the moral law of God is just repackaged and revealed in a much bigger, more dynamic way by Jesus in the gospel teachings. So I don’t know if I would get lost in the terms here.

Horn:

I think the importance is just that there is no work that initially justifies there is no good work that initially justifies and the only kind of work that can end justification would be a gravely evil work that constitutes rejecting God.

Akin:

And just to chime in, that’s why I said both views can be taken by Catholics in how to read these passages. This is not a point that needs to divide us.

Host:

Alright. Alright. Alright guys, let’s go to the next question here. We got a super chat and this is for the Protestants. Thank you Logan for the support, Protestants, church fathers, John chapter five, verse 28, 29 as evidence that one will be judged by their works and therefore one could lose salvation. Are the fathers wrong when they interpret the passage this way?

Nesan:

Well, two questions I have. Number one, which fathers because you can’t just say, well, father said so Father must be always right. It doesn’t work that way. So which Father said, so what was the context they were speaking in? Sometimes when a person says something, if you look through the context, so it talks about face specific context to that, which is why he’s using the word in that. So you need to define which father is saying this, where he’s saying this. And yes, I don’t think, and maybe Jimmy or Trent can correct me here, I don’t think Catholics believe in the infallibility of the fathers either and needed to Protestants. So yes, they can be wrong, but it all depends. And I love what Jimmy said at the start of this discussion that is we should not qua all over words. We should have a meaningful discussion over substance.

Boyce:

And with John chapter five, I mean he explicitly states earlier in the passage that whoever believes in him who sent me has eternal life. There’s a present eternal life in that person. So again, there’s a lot of context that precedes this idea in of itself. And then he also talks about the process of life being given that’s from the father and in the son granted to him and then is now bestowed into us. So we are partaking of not an inactive life. So yes, there’s a rejection not only of Christ and his teachings, his word and his life-giving source, that alone is enough to judge a person. But in the text here he is speaking about faith that precedes this aspect as well and a rejection of Christ or a belief in Christ. So again, we would say on our end of this passage doesn’t disprove our position of justification because even faith is implied here that gives somebody eternal life in Christ in the present case by believing the message in the work of Christ. But the rejection of it is just a continuation of the works that they’re going to be judged with because it is an evil work to even reject Christ himself.

Akin:

Oftentimes Calvinists will point to various passages early on in the gospel of John and kind of take them in isolation as if they proved that it’s impossible to lose salvation. Frequently it’ll be neglected. When Jesus says those who come to me, he uses the present tense, which when it is used in Greek often conveys the idea of it keeps happening. Someone who keeps coming to me, I’m never going to cast out. But he doesn’t eliminate the possibility you could stop coming to him and then get cast out. What I think cinch is the case though is John 15 because in John 15 Jesus tells the disciples, he commands them remain in me and he says, if you don’t remain in me, then you’re going to be like a branch that is taken from the vine and gathered and burned. So he’s envisioning damnation for those who don’t remain in him and he tells them how to remain in him. He says, keep my commandments and this is my commandment. Love each other. So if one were to not love each other, then as John says in one of his epistles, you’re still in death. You would’ve. But one way or another, the command that Jesus gives tells us it is possible to commit new sins that can even cost to your salvation. So I think we need to read John’s gospel taking all of these passages together instead of just isolating individual ones.

Boyce:

Alright Marla, can I add something to that? Yeah, go ahead. Going back to verse 24 of that chapter, the one who has eternal life, he does not come into judgment but has passed from death to life. There is a transformation that is there and the word not is or not comes, is indicative. It’s not a subjunctive verb here. So there is a definitive action that has taken place both in the transformation and the passing of what will not happen, what will happen.

Akin:

Okay, I’m going to need to respond to that.

Boyce:

Sure.

Akin:

So you’re introducing a grammatical point and it goes, the mere presence of the indicative mood does not do this. The indicative mood is not used to refer to definitive irreversible actions. The relevant verb is passed, he’s passed from death to life, but passing does not mean an irreversible action. I can pass from Arkansas to California for a work trip and then I can pass back from California to Arkansas to go home. So if one passes from death to life, he can by repenting pass from life to death, which is the point of the parable of the prodigal son where the son leaves the father and goes and lives a life of dissipation. And the father says, my son is dead, he’s become spiritually dead.

Horn:

Yeah, I would say that that’s reading too much in the indicative. The passage doesn’t say he will not come into judgment, it just says he does not. I worry, but I share Jimmy’s concern about overreading it.

Host:

Alright.

Nesan:

Yeah, I just want to add, oh okay.

Host:

Yeah, yeah, go ahead Sam. Last response and then we’ll move on to the final question before we the transition to the next round.

Nesan:

Yeah, I disagree with the understanding of eternal life. I think life eternal means it’s eternal. If it can be terminated, it was never eternal to begin with. That’s the whole point of the use of the word eternal. And I think with all due respect, Jimmy, I think the analogy of moving from Arkansas to Texas, so the state that you mentioned is not analogous to the moving from life to death and death to life and life to death. I just simply struggle to see how that is in any way comparable to that. Yeah.

Host:

Alright. Alright. Alright guys, that’s a been a final question that we’ll transition here. Thank you for the support John. Appreciate it. After Roman Catholic Church says it’s absolutely necessary for salvation that every creature submit to the Roman pontiff. What happens to justification of a Christian who willingly refuses to submit

Akin:

The Catholic church’s understanding is that God only holds people accountable for what they know to be true. And so if someone doesn’t realize they need to be Catholic, God will only hold them accountable for the truth and the light that they have in their lives. So consequently, if someone, let’s say they grew up Protestant and they heard a bunch of bad stuff about the Pope and they heard a bunch of bad stuff about the Catholic church and so they never became Catholic, well, God’s not going to hold them accountable for what they were innocently unaware of. And what he will hold them accountable for is what they did know. So if they, for example, knew that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind and they refuse to embrace Jesus, well then that would cost them their salvation. Or even if they embrace Jesus, if they then decide to go on a murder spree and they’re not under some mental disease or something, they just voluntarily decide to become a serial killer, well that’s going to cost them their salvation too because they were responsible for their actions. But if the church understands, and you can read the catechism of the Catholic church on this point, for example, it’s in proximity to paragraph 8 44. You can also read the second Vatican Council document Lumen Genium that deals with this. It’s around paragraphs 15 and 16 where it acknowledges that it’s possible for people who aren’t aware of the truth of the Catholic church, who don’t act on it to be saved as long as they otherwise respond to the grace and truth that they’re aware of.

Horn:

I’ll add one thing on it and get the other two gentlemen’s responses. I do think that there is a parallel here that Protestants still have to account for. So Hebrews 1317 says, obey your leaders and submit to them. I think there are many Protestants who would say, and I’m curious to see what you two think. Who would say that one of the good works that is necessary to show you have saving faith is belonging to at least a church. I’ve known Protestant friends who have gone to Bible studies but they never joined a church. They didn’t see any biblical reason that they had to do that. And I’ve met them, I know people like this. So I would say then if it is a mark of saving faith, you have to belong to a church and submit to the elders there. Otherwise you don’t really have saving faith. Then that raises it up to the question, well which elders are we supposed to submit to and gets us closer back to this particular obligation in the Catholic faith?

Nesan:

Alright, before Steven jumps in on this, I need to say Steven and we’ve been having a lot of private conversations just about this point and so maybe Steven, you want to just start us out first and Yeah, go for it.

Boyce:

So this is a huge reason why I believe there has to be a bishop root. I don’t want to speak for all Protestants because I can’t because not all Protestants holders,

Horn:

Nobody can.

Boyce:

Yeah. So I think it is dangerous. Salvation is instituted within Christ who his body is a part of the activity of his church to remove yourself from the church and it’s authority that Christ has instituted there. I have a hard time, I struggle with that person and when it comes to salvation because how can you love Christ yet his body is the church and his authority is given to his apostles, which they gave to their successors. How can you love but not the fullness of the institution in which he has given himself. I really, really struggle these people that want to have private outside of the church congregational Bible studies and call that church, you’re not in a church, it’s not a church. A church has organization, a church has ordained leadership and that ordained leadership is through succession. That is why I moved to Anglicanism to begin with because I think this is an important point. Now the Roman pontiff, we differ on that. I don’t necessarily hold to the papacy the way they do, although we’re not against we in Anglicanism. A lot of us are not against giving credence and admonition to the Bishop of Rome. They were always seen that way by many of the other apostolic churches to the sea of Peter. And we have no problem with that from that perspective. And neither was Luther for that matter. He was not fully against the Pope so long as there was better accountability.

Horn:

But it seems like you could take that you in particular could take that passage and say take out, swap up Roman ponti and put submit to the ordained authority. Something like that. You could just put something else there.

Boyce:

Bishops and priests.

Host:

Okay. Alright guys, we’re going to have to transition now. We’re going to begin part two of this debate. And so we are going to jump into, let me make sure I got the correct topic here. It says, what did the early church believe about justification? And this will be Trent and Dr. Steven Boyce presenting the opening statements. And once again, Dr. Boyce, you’ll be presenting first here if you want to pull up your PowerPoint.

Boyce:

I’m going to try. I really am.

Host:

So you got it the first try. Look at you. There you go.

Boyce:

Did I really?

Host:

Yeah, you got to hit the button. Hit that. There you go. Look at you man. You’re a techie now. You’re a techie now, man. Wow.

Boyce:

See? Think Jimmy was the expert off camera and now I’m the one that’s on camera, so usually it works the other way around, so I got lucky this time. So alright. And before you start my time, before we start my time, Marlon, I just want to say we really appreciate Trent and Jimmy. We have a lot of respect for them and we’re thankful for the debate and discussion. We will have points of contention, but we want everyone to know it is a mutual respect and we do benefit from a lot of the stuff that they put out there. So just wanted to make that clear as well.

Host:

Excellent, excellent. Alright. Alright. I’ll start your time as soon as you begin to speak.

Boyce:

Alright, well let’s talk about justification. In the early church when we use the term justification, I believe that we have limited its meaning and I think we’ve wrongly defined justification as just being justified before God and God only. Yes, the pinnacle of our standing before God is of the highest importance, but the implications of that are farther reaching. When looking at scripture and history, we can see that justification is defined from three different viewpoints that I’m going to demonstrate one justification before God, two justification before ourselves and three justification before others. And I’ve demonstrated that on the triangle there and I will explain each of these. And the reason I say that is because the term justified is not limited to the viewpoint of being justified before God only. In fact, Paul uses the term one Timothy three 16 that says that Christ was justified in the Spirit.

Now therefore the term cannot only have the idea of justifying somebody as making them righteous who was not because Jesus was the perfect son of God who did not need righteousness imputed to him. But the idea could also carry the institution of validation or vindication of a proclamation that was sentenced on somebody beforehand. Let me demonstrate this. In the pattern ministry of Jesus, when we look at Jesus, he said that his works bore witness about him that the father had sent him. He said, the very works that I do, bear witness to me, and he says this throughout specifically John’s gospel that they testify of him even says, if you don’t believe me, believe the works that I do, they demonstrated and validated something about him. The work that he did through the spirit of the Paul speaking of here validated him and his proclamation from the Father.

His works did not earn him sonship but revealed to others. He was already the son. His works validate and justified him before men that what the father proclaimed about him at his baptism was already confirmed. This is my beloved son whom I’m well pleased. Jesus being the perfect son of God, didn’t need righteousness imputed to him. It is clear that Paul was using this term in light of validating Christ’s already established position with the Father. So let’s break this down and how that relates to us who are sinners and do need the imputation of Christ. How does one become justified before God? Scripture teaches just as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness, which has been dealt with multiple times. In the last hour or so, Clement of Rome echoes this, one of the first bishops of Rome, whoever will candidly consider each particular will recognize the greatness of the gifts that were given to him being Abraham in connection to Genesis 15, thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven all these therefore, and he goes through a whole list of the kings, the Levites, the priest, the whole institution of the prophets was benefited by the faith of Abraham because of that, all these therefore were highly honored and made great not for their own sake or for their own works or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of his will, we too being called by his will in Christ Jesus are not justified by ourselves nor by our own wisdom understanding godliness or works which we have rotten a holiness of heart, but by the faith which through from the beginning almighty God has justified all men.

So all men are justified, made righteous, imputed righteous by faith that is instituted both in scripture and Clement of Rome. So in this, Abraham was justified before God when he believed the promise. It should be pointed out here that what took place beforehand is that he tasted the heavenly gifts of the bread and the wine from the mysterious priest, king Melek just prior to. And so therefore we see a full demonstration of Ephesians two. For by grace you saved through faith, he was given a precursor of grace through what would be instituted as a sacrament through Eucharist, by being given the body and blood through bread and wine by Mel Ek Grace was given to Abraham and faith followed and as a result of faith, we see him justify himself in other ways, not just before God, but also before himself. Abraham validated himself before God by offering his son as a sacrifice, by demonstrating he truly feared God and understood that dynamic of the ultimate sacrifice of the lamb.

That’s why he said God will provide a lamb. That’s why he demonstrates belief that God will give him his son back even in sacrifice to the point of resurrection. It was accurate therefore for James to say of Abraham, he was justified by works because works quote completed his faith. So the justification of works was that the works demonstrated to Abraham, he truly was living out this faith. Clement of Rome even builds into this idea. In the same letter in one Clement said that he obediently offered him being Isaac as a sacrifice of God on one of the hills. So in his faith it led him to obey. There was a following of his faith that demonstrated genuine completeness and finality to what he believed all along it proved himself to God. Abraham lived out his covenant with God through circumcision. We see other illustrations of this circumcision, I believe later being replaced through the covenant of baptism to the end of his life.

He demonstrated that he understood the significance of future sacraments. Again, not fully, but the precursors as shown by the bread and the wine from Melek as well as the sacrament and the covenant keeping through circumcision in the sacraments. So why sacraments? Sacraments validate ourselves before God, since they are a means of grace, we put ourselves in a position where grace in sacraments can work in and through us because sacraments do not benefit others. They benefit the individual who partakes. I can’t take char for someone else. I can’t be baptized on behalf of somebody else. It validates my personal relationship with God. He has declared me righteousness by faith. The sacraments are setting me apart to God through grace to confess sin. When I sin to be abiding in Christ by taking a Eucharist to be washed in baptism, et cetera. These are personal sanctifying moments where grace is instilled in me in this life where I need them in order to live out the next portion that is in sacrament.

Now, sacrament itself can’t save us in the sense of justification by faith in the top of the pyramid only sanctify us at the bottom of the pyramid. Here’s the reason I say that. When we look at texts, for example, like the EINs, which could be anywhere from sixth to ninth century, they say of Abraham and James 2 23, Abraham is an image of someone who is justified by faith alone. He does use the word term alone here since what he believed was credited him as righteousness, but he doesn’t leave faith alone alone. He actually goes and say, but he is also keyword approved because of his works since he off heard his son Isaac on the altar, of course he did not do this work by itself because faith isn’t alone and works aren’t alone in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith. So the works are a result of his faith.

They’re living out of that faith. They’re not separate, they’re not proceeding. Faith comes first, works are attached and anchored out of that faith. And the reason I say sacraments play into this that they can’t do what faith does is because sacraments can’t justify us before God. They can only justify us before ourselves and others and that many who partook of these sacraments apostatize. Like in one Corinthians 10, they were baptized in the baptism of Moses. They ate spiritual food and they drank the spiritual drink of Christ from the rock yet destroyed in the wilderness. Lest we believe this has implied to us in the new covenant, Hebrew six warns us that we can be enlightened. And as early as Justin martyr the interpretation, even the pita and translations of the ancient times demonstrate that the word enlightened here means to be baptized. Taste of the heavenly gift.

Many have interpreted to be the Eucharist still end up falling away and cannot be restored to repentance. There is no return for them. That is why the writer of Hebrews began with the words that the foundation of one of repentance and faith is toward God. The foundation is on repentance and faith and then to walk away from that could actually result in no return. So we see justification before God that’s by faith and specifically being imputed righteous unto them. We see sacrificing and all that Abraham did demonstrated and validated that faith to himself, but it also did something more than that. It also justified himself before others. Abraham also validated himself before others by act of sacrifice and was given later, after his lifetime, the term friend of God. This is what others put on him. Clement says, who whosoever will candidly consider each particular will recognize the greatness of the gifts that were given to him because of his faith and hospitality.

A son was granted to him in his old age and he obediently offered him as a sacrifice to God. So his hospitality, I love how Clement highlights that the acts of love and charity validate or justify us before men love for God and love for others. The Apostle John said, little children let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous as he is righteous. John later describes righteous living in this chapter by charity towards other validating righteous, standing before God to be genuine. Therefore, the righteous acts are from somebody who has already made righteous.

Host:

Alright, Steven, thank you so much for that opening. Appreciate it. Alright Trent, you’re now up for your 10 minute opening and if you want to share your screen,

Speaker 7:

Let’s see. Hold on.

Host:

Alright,

Speaker 7:

Let me get this and do my,

Horn:

Alrighty. You see my screen and hear me just fine?

Host:

Yes sir, we can.

Horn:

Alright, great.

Host:

Alright, I’ll start your time as soon as you begin to speak.

Speaker 7:

Alrighty. Okay.

Horn:

Alright. So I worry we might be talking a little bit past each other. Hopefully that’ll be remedied because this part we were going to talk about what does the early church think about justification? So that’s what I was planning to address and what we had agreed to address so the early Christians would agree with Protestants. So it makes us right with God is faith in Jesus Christ. However, the early church understanding of how faith in Christ saves us, it differs from many Protestant models. So the 20th century Calvinist author Lorraine Ner says of the church fathers, they of course taught that salvation was through Christ. Yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Part of rejecting the gospel meant a Christian was capable of doing bad works that failed to uphold the moral law, the law of Christ. As Galatians six, two puts it.

So Matthew Thomas is shown in his book, Paul’s works of the law and the perspective of second century reception that the early church did not recognize the Pauline phrase works of the law to refer to any good deed that conformed to the moral law. In fact, John Calvin did not cite any church father in his commentary on Romans three who held to his view of what works of the law were he also notes that John Christ Origen and Jerome believe the expression not be understood as including all works. So the early church rejected the claim that one had to do the good work of becoming a Jew before he could become a Christian. But they did not believe works had nothing to do with our justification. Indeed the Dutch reformed theologian Lewis Burko writes the writings of the early church fathers contain very little respecting the doctrine of sanctification.

A strain of moralism is quite apparent in that man was taught to depend for salvation on faith and good works. For example, Clement of Rome says we are not justified by ourselves, which is true since salvation is a gift from God. We do nothing to initially enter into justification. But he also says, blessed are we beloved if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love. That so through love, our sins may be forgiven us for is written blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Scholar Kerry Newman summarizes Clement saying, Clement understood good works as the means to maintain salvation. We should also be skeptical of the claim that the early church held the Protestant theories of justification by faith alone. Because as Protestant historians admit, the early church did not use the language of justification in its discussions about what saves us in Alistair McGrath’s book, who’s to See a Day A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification.

This is by one of the most comprehensive books on the subject. It’s over 500 pages long, but it spends less than 10 pages on how justification was understood before St. Augustine McGrath writes, early Christian writers did not choose to express their soteriological convictions primarily in terms of the concept of justification. We should allow the early Christians to speak for themselves instead of trying to shoehorn their views into a later theological paradigm that contradicts the essence of what they believed. We should also remember that the early church includes a broad collection of church fathers as well as ecclesial writers. Catholic doctrine does not rely on the fathers unanimously holding a certain view or articulating a doctrine with specific vocabulary. Vocabulary since the church’s understanding of God’s revelation develops over time. However, there are some basic doctrines related to what makes us right with God that are universal among the church fathers.

So first the church unanimously held that baptism is the initial means by which we become right with God or saved from our sins. According to the Protestant scholar j and d Kelly from the beginning, baptism was the universally accepted right of admission to the church as regards to significance. It was always held to convey the remission of sins. The Protestant apologist William Webster likewise admits that the doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers. Second, the early church fathers unanimously agreed that the gift of justification could be lost through bad works like grave evils. Y said Those who do not obey him being disinherited by have ceased to be his sons wherefore they cannot receive his inheritance. Ian writes, for do not many afterward, fall out of grace is not this gift taken away from many and the absol constitutions teach that he whose sins after his baptism, unless he repent and forsake his sins, shall be condemned to hell fire.

So this contradicts free grace apology which says no evil work could ever cause you to lose your salvation. And it also contradicts the doctrine of eternal security, which says the elect cannot permanently lose salvation. That view assumes that all permanent apostates were never truly saved in the first place. So those who defend free grace theology admit it was not known in the early church. Wilkin writes, the first generation after the apostles distorted the good news which the apostles had entrusted to their care. The reformers looked back to Christ and the apostles rather than the church fathers for their view of salvific repentance and the gospel. So Wilkin is a free grace theologian and other free grace theologians point out that eternal security, the competing view is just as un historical. Kenneth Yates writes, the gospel is understood by Lordship. Salvation proponents is not found in the extent writings of the early church.

Peter Lilach, the president of the Protestant Westminster Seminary writes, the evidence is clear eternal security was not a doctrine that was carefully considered by the uninspired founding fathers of our Christian tradition. It is hard to believe, but in over 5,000 pages of the anti-icing writings, John three 16 is only cited twice. There are elements of the church fathers that can be viewed as moving away from grace toward what NT Wright has termed in early Catholicism. The early church also believed that in order to be made right with God after committing grave sin, one had to formally reconcile with the church through the confession of sin. The dedication says in your gatherings, confess your transgressions and do not come for prayer with a guilty conscience. The New Testament scholar, David Rens Berger, cites the Diday along with passages in Mark Acts and James to show that confession of sin as generally public Saint Cyprian in the third century writes, let each one confess his sin.

I beseech you brethren, while he who is sinned is still in this world, while his confession can be admitted, while the satisfaction and remission affected through the priest is pleasing with the Lord. So that’s in the third century. As I noted earlier, the early church did not generally use the language of justification when describing what makes us right with God. However, they did believe baptism was what first makes us right with God and that it was possible to do bad works that could cause one to lose this saving relationship with God. If someone committed such a bad work, then he needed to formally reconcile with God through the church. St. Ambrose puts it well, he said the office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit and his right. It is specially to forgive and to retain sins. Why do you baptize? Sins cannot be remitted by man if baptism is certainly the remission of all sins.

What difference does it make whether priests claim that this power is given to them in penance or at the font he calls each blessed both him whose sins are remitted by the baptismal font and him whose sin is covered by good works. Now we might discuss later different, you can find in the fathers them using phrases like faith alone for example. And as Jimmy referenced earlier, Catholics use that language too. So just because a father uses the language of faith alone, it doesn’t mean he believed in the Protestant doctrine of soia. I’ll give you a test case of that. Alright, here’s a mystery quote. This is from a writer in the early church. God justifies by faith alone and because they thought that they were righteous by works of the law they did not keep, they refuse to submit themselves to the forgiveness of sins.

Now that sounds like it could come from Martin Luther, but it actually comes from Palis, the heretic palis. Well, there’s debate about exactly what Palis believed, but he is the poster boy for many people for workspace salvation. So don’t think that every citation of faith alone in the fathers is equivalent to the Protestant notion of sofie. Indeed, we see the fathers on multiple occasions literally church rejecting this kind of view. So Clement of Alexandria, he writes, your faith has saved you, your faith has saved you. We do not understand him to say absolutely that those who have believed in any way, whatever shall be saved unless also works, follow and the fathers don’t act like works automatically. Follow from saving faith is something we must choose to do. John Christ said he that believes not the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Yet not even from this, do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation and the directions for living given in many places of the gospels show this. So not even from this, do we assert faith alone is sufficient for salvation. This includes also having to do things that are obligatory. So Ignatius of Antioch 1 0 7 speaks about how the breaking the bread, the Eucharist, you must obey the bishop and the presbytery and that the Eucharist is the medicine of immortality, the antidote to prevent us from dying. So one who is not in community with the bishop, one who does not receive the Eucharist, does not have this antidote that leaves one from dying. The Protestant Thomas Torrance said to this passage, we are thus far from a New Testament doctrine of grace. We are in fact, well on the way to the Roman Catholic view. I disagree with Torrance’s assessment that this is a contradiction. The Catholic view is the New Testament view. The catechism paragraph 2010 says, no one can merit the initial grace of justification through baptism, but one can demerit lose that grace through grave sin. This loss can be permanent if the person does not reconcile with Christ through the church he established. And this is the view we find among the early Christians. Thank you.

Host:

Thank you Trent for that presentation. Thank you also, Dr. Boy, for that presentation. Now we’re going to jump into our rebuttal round and we’ll be going with minute rebuttals and I’ll start your five minutes when you begin to speak Dr. Steven.

Boyce:

Yeah, just to be clear, I am using early church lingo into the New Testament, specifically focusing on not so many of the church fathers as Trent had mentioned. Because when you bring all the fathers in, you have kind of a different consensus of terminology. I chose to use those in the early part like Clement and even writings that are by the ECU demonstrating specifically Abraham. And that there are three elements to justification. Justification before God, justification that identifies ourselves, validates ourselves, and then a validation to others. And I demonstrated that through Clement and through these other documents also that there is a true statement what was said by trend, that when you look at some of these individuals, McGrath mentioned the justification understood before Augustine cannot be inserted upon terminology we are using today. I agree with that to a level in fact, that’s why I think we have to be careful and that’s why I stated in my very first line that we have wrongly applied justification to a singular thing that it is expressed in more than one way, but how our statuses before God was not really a point of debate.

For example, Mathes in writing the letter to Dus, an unknown writer that has been called disciple of the Lord. He talks about justification. In fact he says, and what other was it possible that the wicked and the ungodly could be justified? Dco Thae, he uses the hes definitive passive. Same exact tense that Paul used in Galatians two 16 and 17, which does speak to the faith aspect here. Then he goes into describe it. That can only be given by the son of God through a sweet exchange. There’s a substitutionary change. Oh unsearchable Operation O benefits surpassing all expectation that the wickedness of many should be hidden to a single righteous one and that the righteous one should justify many transgressors. And my point when making is our justification before God being made righteous is a one-time act of faith. But that act of faith is not alone.

It transcends into many of the things that Trent demonstrated in his presentation. Many church fathers attest to, it goes right into sacraments. It’s not without ’em, it’s with ’em. They lead to them. This work of faith and repentance that happens before God will not stay at a mountaintop experience. It will transcend to other planes and the plane of sacraments being connected to him and identified in him through baptism and the washing and regeneration by being in the abiding process of taking the body and blood of Christ by experiencing relationship, by confessing and forsaking sin and seeking absolution. These things are necessitated for a person who’s living not a life that once was a faith, but is living a life of active faith. And it will continue to validate that relationship as he partakes in the sacraments within himself. As a result of taking of the grace of sacraments, the sacraments of grace will not leave you there either.

There will be a next move. The next move is once you’ve experienced a grace of God and sacraments, you will not contain that within yourself and leave it to yourself in isolation. It will spill into the acts of love and charity. This is what Clement was referring to in One Clement 50 when he talks about love in the sense of justifying because it is justifying and demonstrating a validation. This is why I made the point. Paul uses the word justification as well. This is why I agree with McGrath. We cannot limit it to just being made righteous before God. Because even in the early patristics we find them using the term in sense of also validating and already proclamation over an individual. A person who’s been justified by faith will live out that faith through works. We see that in Abraham and as a result will love others. That’s why I loved how Clement demonstrated about Abraham, that he loved his hospitality was demonstrated in his life and it is people that gave him the label, the friend of God because of the way he lived out his faith continually validating it, confirming it, and it’s one connected, beautiful, harmonized system. Not three separate things. One will lead to the other, which will lead to the other, and I believe they’re connected and cannot be reversed.

Host:

Alright, thank you Dr. Steve voice for that rebuttal. Alright, Trent, you’re up for your 500 rebuttal and I’ll start your time as soon as you begin to speak.

Horn:

Okay, hold. Lemme just check to make sure. All right, you can see and hear me just fine.

Host:

Alright. Yes we can.

Horn:

Alright. So remember what we’re discussing. We talked about the biblical part here. We’re wondering what does the early church think about justification? And a notice though that Dr. Boyce really, he only focused on two, well, three writers, oy Canus in the early middle Ages, and then Clement Ron and the Epistle Dus. As I said before, even if all those three sources held the soul offi day, that really wouldn’t give us a determinative view of what the early church thought about justification or salvation. We need to do a wider survey, and that’s something that I did in my opening, but I want to go through some of the things that he brought up. So the epistle of dus, I think that many Protestants read in here about the sweet exchange and make an assumption that this relates to sofie. This relates to only to imputed righteousness.

However, faith is only mentioned four times in the letter. The letter never talks about salvation occurring through faith in Christ. The Protestant scholar Michael Bird says, of the epistle, DUS imputed righteousness at best is a possible corollary of the text, not part of its content. So I think the big disagreement here is that yes, God can impute righteousness to us, he can declare us righteous. That also transforms us capable to do good works, but the works do not automatically flow from the faith. We are capable of doing the works, but we still retain a free will to choose to not do them or choose to reject God later. A good example of this would be the parable, the unforgiving servant, the servant’s debt is forgiven. He’s capable now of being generous to others. He rejects that the debt is then reinstated and Matthew 18. So talking about Abraham, so I guess we can talk about the Bible a little bit.

That’s fine. It’s always a good thing. A few problems with Dr. Boyce was mentioning with Abraham in justification. Abraham first he was justified years before God made a covenant with him. In Genesis 15 when Abraham answered God’s call to follow him in a strange land in Genesis 12, because Hebrews 11, eight says, Abraham did that work through a faith that men of old received divine approval. So he believed God. He was initially justified by faith and he chose to obey God and was approved because of that. And still, I think the important point to remember here as NT Wrightwood says, talking about Romans four, Wright says that Paul is ruling out any suggestion Abraham might’ve been just the sort of person God is looking for. Abraham had nothing to boast about. Just as I and Jimmy, no one has anything to boast for our initial justification.

We just receive that gift from God, but we can choose to reject it later and reject through our own demerits. Genesis 22, 5. The idea that, well, it’s just justification before others. Well, Abraham and Isaac go away from the servants to do the sacrifice. There’s nothing in the text that shows that the reformed Protestant scholar, Thomas Shriner writes, there is no evidence that justification here in Genesis 22 relates to justification before people rather than God. When James uses the word save and justify, he has in mind one’s relationship with God. So when it comes to Clement, that’s perfectly incompatible with the Catholic view that Clement is saying, just like all these other people in the Old Testament, they became righteous. God chose them, not because they were special great people, but he chose them. God can freely choose who he will. We have nothing to boast about entering into a covenant with God.

He chooses us however we can choose to reject God in one Clement 35 Clement Praise let us earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for him in order that we may share in his promised gifts. The scholar, Carrie Newman, I referenced earlier says in one Clement, one gets in by faith, but one stays in through works. You don’t do good works. Oh, I need to pray enough rosaries to be saved. Catholics don’t believe that. We just believe that you can choose to reject God by committing a grave, evil or failing to do an obligation God has given us for protestants even say getting baptized or receiving the Eucharist. I have a little bit of time here, so I’m just going to say something else about the early fathers. You go through them, they’re pretty unanimous, especially when you get to the third century on very explicit about our salvation requiring reception of the Eucharist.

The mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, confession of sins to a priest being purified and purgatory. So if we try to say the father is held to a Protestant view of faith alone and they also held to these Catholic views, either the Catholic views don’t contradict faith alone. So Protestants don’t really have that much of a reason to not be Catholic anymore or it could be the case these later fathers talk about justification by faith, they’re talking about that which initiates us into living right with God and the other things we can do or fail to do that can damage or rupture that relationship. So there’s a lot more that we could discuss and I look forward to talking about that in our cross-examination.

Host:

Alright, thank you guys both for your opening and your rebuttal. And so now that’s what we’re headed to the cross-examination. Sam, you there, Sam? You all know you had an option to cut the camera off, but Sam, if you’re there, you want to get your camera back up. We got the cross X next, but this is going to once again be cross x 15 minute cross-examination. If you can answer your opponent’s question one minute with some of the yes or no, please do that. Don’t want to bog your opponent’s time down. So that said, it’d be Steven, he’ll be cross-examining Trent and Jimmy

Boyce:

Trent, you made a comment here in relation to James chapter two that I want to make sure I understood you. Are you saying that James two is talking about justification before God, not before people?

Horn:

Yeah. I was quoting what a Protestant scholar Thomas Shriner was speaking about what James is referring to when it comes to justification.

Boyce:

What is your view?

Horn:

My view that Abraham’s righteousness increased by obeying God and being willing to offer Abraham as a sacrifice. He did not enter into an initial state of justification by being obedient to God, but his justification, it increased because he was obedient to God because works also justifies us, not just faith alone.

Akin:

If I can point out real quick, this is a, because this is a common source of misunderstanding

Boyce:

In project I need a yes or no, I just need a yes or no, I just need a yes or no

Horn:

That it justifies him before God.

Boyce:

No. Does James two speak about justifying before God or people

Horn:

Mind? Well, that’s a broad question with the chapter, but I guess I would say before God though it does talk about other people looking at our faith.

Akin:

Sure.

Boyce:

Okay, Jimmy,

Akin:

One of the common misunderstandings that we find in this discussion is James two, where he talks about the justification of Abraham is often misunderstood as initial justification that is not the Catholic church’s understanding of what James is talking about. The only time that Trent ever cites this passage is in connection with growth in righteousness after one has initially come to God and been justified. So what James is not saying is that you need to do works in order to get justified. He’s talking about how one is further made righteous after initial justification by cooperating with God’s grace and doing acts of love.

Boyce:

So that goes back to my point in the pyramid I have there that justification is not limited to a singular point. It is actually justifying not only before God, but before man. Would you say that James two, when he says challenges them, show me your works. And he talks about how people named Abraham the friend of God, that this justification is not limited to being made right before God, but rather this is validating a right standing with God before man. Is that what James two is teaching?

Akin:

It is both. He is both being justified before God by growth and righteousness. And James also notes that if you can’t demonstrate the reality of your faith formed by charity, by good works, then you effectively don’t have good faith and you need to because James says, I’ll show you the legitimacy of my faith by my works. So there’s an aspect of both justification before God and justification before people.

Boyce:

Sorry,

Nesan:

Can I jump in real quick? Sorry. Go ahead, Steve.

Boyce:

Yeah, sorry. No, no, go ahead. Go ahead Samuel. You’re fine.

Nesan:

No, I just wanted to say, so we discussed in your opening statement, Jimmy, you gave three definitions of faith, right? And so which one do you think James is referring to in particular here in his definition of faith? I think you did mention in your opening statement,

Akin:

Yeah, when he says that faith does not justify, he’s talking about intellectual ascent alone when he says, I’ll show you my faith by my works. Of course he means acts of love for God and neighbor. He’s talking about formed faith.

Nesan:

Yes. And so yeah, I just want to clarify that, Steven, please go ahead.

Boyce:

Yes. So when we’re dealing with the discussion here, moving into Trent, you mentioned specifically the sacraments came up a few times. And again, I tried to not bring in too many church fathers because of what was said earlier. They’re such a broad, so I wanted just to keep it connected to the Abraham story in some of the early writings because 10 minutes is not a lot of time to cover the corpus of fathers. But when you’re looking at the discussion that you made about salvation, would you say that salvation itself is a gift?

Horn:

Yes.

Boyce:

Yep. Do you believe? Yeah.

Horn:

No one can merit the initial graces of justification. That’s why babies when they’re baptized, they’re saved as a gratuitous gift. They do nothing.

Boyce:

So if the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable, how does that fit into that framework where you can lose that position?

Horn:

Are you quoting what Paul says in Romans about the salvation of the Jewish people, that the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable? Is that what you’re alluding to?

Boyce:

Sure. Because I think specifically where he’s speaking in a, yes, there would be specifics there, but generally the gifts and callings of God, which would involve Abraham, would’ve not.

Horn:

Right. But that’s getting us into a slightly different topic than justification. That’s getting us into the question, what are the fate of those? While Christians are not justified by the old covenant, we’re justified by the new covenant. Paul is raising a separate question, how are Jews made right with God? If God made a promise to them, what will happen to them? And it’s not entirely clear what Paul’s answer is there, but he expresses a hope that in some way all Israel will be saved.

Akin:

Yeah. If I can jump in, when Paul articulates in Romans that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, he’s articulating a general principle that applies in a certain way to the Jewish people, but he obviously doesn’t mean that no gift of God or no calling of God is irrevocable because God gifted the Israelites with the land and then when they fell into idolatry, he took away that gift and they went into exile. Similarly, king Saul was initially given a calling to be God’s king over Israel, but when Saul fell into sin, he lost that calling and God replaced him with David. So Paul is not saying that no gift or no calling is irrevocable. He’s talking specifically about the kind of gift and calling that the Jewish people receive to proclaim the message of the one true God to the world. We can’t therefore draw inferences about things like salvation. He in fact, in the very same chapter in Romans 11, he says he warns the readers, the gentile readers, that if they don’t maintain faith, they will be cut off. And so obviously he doesn’t mean that no gift or calling is irrevocable because he acknowledges in the same chapter that if you lose faith, you will be cut off too

Horn:

If you don’t continue in God’s kindness. Romans 1122.

Boyce:

But in verse 30, going back to verse 29 and 30, he does tie that into us, not just Old Testament gifts and callings because he says you were also once disobedient liking the condition of these people in Rome, right? They’re in the same condition. So the question that follows in that he does bring the act of mercy of salvation into play here,

Akin:

Not just Old Testament gifts, it’s under gifts, it is under discussion. But the specific point he’s making when he talks about gifts and callings that are irrevocable has to do with the Jewish people as a whole entity. And Paul views the Jewish people as an entity as continuing to have this because there’s a faithful remnant that he talks about. But that doesn’t mean all Jews have irrevocability and irrevocable calls. In fact, he warns the gentile readers of the letter that you stand only by faith and if you lose faith, you will be cut off just like the branches who were cut off for their unbelief in Jesus. So while salvation is part of the discussion in this chapter, Paul is by no means saying you can’t lose salvation. In fact, he’s made the opposite point explicitly, you can lose it.

Boyce:

Let’s back up into this beforehand, going back to Abraham for example, you both admitted earlier when talking to Samuel, I believe that you believe that the things that were happening like say Mel Eck, these are precursors to what would be eucharistic language or maybe even baptismal and circumcision. I’m not sure your positions on that, but you see the precursors of these things. Now, Trent, your position on sacraments, you brought them up quite a few times in specifically in quotations. When you look at the sacraments themselves, what role do they play in justification?

Horn:

It depends on the sacrament. So the sacrament of baptism is the ordinary means that initially justifies us, but as Jimmy said, it’s not the absolute means because the church is long believed in the salvation of catechumenates who die before baptism, like if they’re martyred, bism is theism. Yeah, baptism or baptism of desire. Catechumenate who dies before receiving baptism. So baptism initiates, I would say the others in their relation to justification, they can strengthen us with virtues so that we can grow in holiness. But primarily the ones that would deal with justification would be baptism. If we lose the grace of justification, then the fact of confession is how we enter back into God’s friendship. We go to God, we repent and we believe repent, repent of our sins and the sacrament of the Eucharist would be a part of the obligation of the Christian life, that to be a person who is united Christ, one must still remain united to him and be obedient to him. When he said, take eat, this is my body, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you. And it also remits, venial, sins, things like that

Akin:

To say it concisely, the only two sacraments that put you in a state of justification or baptism, which puts you in initially and confession, which puts you in again, the other sacraments deal with what happens after you’re in a state of justification.

Boyce:

Now you both would agree that, go ahead. Go ahead, Samuel.

Nesan:

No, I just wanted to get this real quick because I think it’s just to backtrack with what you just said and go back to James two and try to connect the dots. Jimmy, you said that in James two, James is not dealing with fide forta or formative faith. He’s dealing specifically with an intellectual aspect of faith or an ascent. And so you also pointed out that Calvin was actually, when Calvin talks about faith alone, he’s actually has F forta in mind. And so on the basis of these two premises, does it not follow that the James tube does not contradict Calvin’s understanding of justification by faith?

Akin:

Yeah, I would agree, James, to at least I’d have to reread everything Calvin wrote on this subject, but my understanding is that it wouldn’t in terms of what we’ve discussed in the first passage where James refers to demons having intellectual faith in it, not saving them, Calvin would agree. Intellectual faith does not save in the second passage where James says, I’ll show you my faith by my works. He’s talking about formed faith. And Calvin would agree, that does save.

Nesan:

Yeah, that’s all. I just wanted to clarify that. Okay, go ahead Steven.

Boyce:

So going into Augustine, he talks about baptism working through vinal and mortal sins, and then he actually goes in specifically he was talking about infants there and the original sin that they have and not yet had commit the others. When you look at baptism as a removal, say it’s a person who has cumulated both mortal and al sins, when those are washed, from your perspective, why doesn’t there need to be a re baptism if there were mortal sins committed?

Akin:

Because we’re prohibited by divine law from applying baptism. Again, that’s where in Ephesians, Paul says there’s one faith, one hope, one baptism. You can only be validly baptized once. That’s why confession is the second plank after baptism because you can’t repeat baptism. So we need a second sacrament, which Christ authorized on the day of the resurrection.

Boyce:

But do you need more than one faith to get back in?

Akin:

No, you may not lose faith at all when you commit immortal sin. You may believe the Christian faith, it ceases to be justify in faith. You also do not, you need to reacquire faith, you need to repent and turn back

Boyce:

To that’s in

Akin:

The Christian faith. No, it’s one faith you’re embracing. Now you can if you wish, try to logic chop here and say, oh, well quire in faith you can reacquire faith in a way that you can’t redo baptism. That would be a difference between faith and baptism, but it doesn’t generate a logical contradiction.

Horn:

I would say Protestants have a similar issue to deal with that Protestants make a distinction between the kind of faith that you would manifest to begin salvation like receiving Christ as your Lord and Savior and that if you committed a grave sin in the Christian life, you don’t have to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Again, you just have to be reconciled with God. So because baptism is the one act that makes us children of God and gives us an indelible mark that cannot be undone, the ways to restore friendship with God will always be different after baptism than before.

Boyce:

But wouldn’t you say with that Trent, that most Protestants are not referring to the first two faiths that Jimmy mentioned in the beginning of his, that it’s just an intellectual that when we’re speaking about faith, we’re already assuming the third to be true and the others are inevitable. So there’s always going to be a continual faith, not a broken faith from one to another because we would say right, wouldn’t you say that most Protestants would say that?

Horn:

Well, I don’t know exactly what was just summarized there, so I can’t really agree to it, but

Akin:

I also would reject the characterization of this being two faiths. As Jude three says, the faith was once for all delivered to the saints. There is only one faith and it’s the Christian faith. A person may make more than one act of embracing that faith, but there is only one faith.

Boyce:

But wouldn’t that be consistent with baptism too? Because there’s only one baptism, Dr.

Host:

We got that conclude the cross sex. So now Trenton, Jimmy are up for the 15 minute cross X of Samuel and Steven.

Horn:

Alrighty. Well I have some questions here and Jimmy, if you want to chime in, you’re more than welcome to. I do. I mean we can talk about, well I had a few questions I was eager to ask when Jimmy was going, I didn’t get to, so maybe I can throw them out here and we’ll have some fun with that. Which would you say is a better formulation of your view? You’re justified by faith alone or you’re justified by saving faith alone.

Nesan:

Lemme answer that. I’ll just say that the faith that we refer to, sorry, the faith that we are referring to is the saving faith. That’s what we are referring to. We’re not referring to mere intellectual ascent.

Horn:

Okay. Does the Bible ever use the term saving faith?

Nesan:

No.

Horn:

Okay. Let’s see here. So your position is that we are not justified by works but works, but good works are present in the person who is truly justified and has saving faith. Is that correct?

Nesan:

Yes. Faith produces works. Yes.

Horn:

Okay. What specifically are the good works that will be present

Boyce:

Charity.

Nesan:

There will be the

Boyce:

Love charity, the right facts of love First John? Yeah, one, John three, whoever’s righteous will practice righteousness and that is further described as love.

Horn:

Okay.

Nesan:

And I’ll also add Trent, I’ll just also add participation in the local church and in the sacraments as well.

Horn:

Agreed. So someone who does not participate in a local church, they do not have saving faith,

Nesan:

I don’t think there. Salvation outside the church.

Boyce:

Agreed.

Horn:

Alright, let’s see here. Because what I’m trying to understand, because I feel like that sometimes when we talk about the works and the justification, I don’t think they’re really that different. So I have one more question on that then I do want to go over the historical question because I think it is important. So would you say then for a saved person, alright, how about this a justified person, will they exhibit some sins in their life? Minor sins?

Boyce:

Absolutely.

Horn:

Okay. Are there some sins that would show that they’re not actually saved? If they were an abortionist or they were an OnlyFans pornographer and they persisted in that, would that show that they didn’t have saving faith?

Boyce:

Yeah, I think that’s one Corinthians. He lists quite a few mortal sins that are there that those people will not inherit the kingdom of God. And all of those are in a practicing form. So I don’t want to speak for Samuel, but my answer would be yes, there are specific sins that are listed that demonstrates somebody does not have the kingdom of God. John does the same thing in his epistle. He says whoever hates his brother, we know whoever hates does not have eternal life abiding in him. That person has demonstrated they’ve never been

Akin:

Okay. I’d like to follow up on that because one of the things that St. Paul says, we’re talking about one Corinthians six and he gives this list, he says, do not be deceived. The following kinds of people will not inherit the kingdom of God. And he says, such were some of you, but you were wash of you, you were sanctified, you were justified. So he’s talking to people who have, some of them were in those categories, but he says the ones he’s writing to have been washed and sanctified and justified. So they’re currently in a state of grace. Nevertheless, he’s given a clear warning here he is saying, do not be deceived. The following kinds of people will not inherit the kingdom of God. So the obvious inference which has been received in the Catholic church all the way down through history is that you can be washed and sanctified and justified and if you fall back into those categories that he just named, you will lose your salvation. So this to me seems to be the obvious implication of this text. Do you agree or at least do you feel the force of that argument?

Nesan:

No, for me, Steven, shall I go and answer that?

Akin:

Go ahead. No, you’re fine. Go ahead Simon.

Nesan:

Yeah, no, go ahead.

Akin:

This Steven, you feel no force to that argument?

Nesan:

Not at all. Because I think that first of all, when Paul is talking about this, he describes this is first Corinthians six was nine onwards do not be deceived. Those who practice a list of other things, including malaco and Ace, effeminate men, practicing homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God. Verse 11, he says, such was some of you but you were washed. That’s past tense. It’s taken place. Five 11 says that if those people were doing these things, the church ought to excommunicate them. They cannot be in fellowship in the church. So my understanding of that is that those who are doing this are no longer in fellowship in the church, but those who are in church have repented from these things. It’s in the past.

Akin:

Okay. Samuel, do you pray the Lord’s prayer?

Nesan:

Yes, I do.

Akin:

Okay. And have all of your sins past, present, and future been forgiven?

Nesan:

From a timeless perspective, yes, but in time, no, that requires repentancy

Akin:

Then it would seem you’re being insincere when you’re praying the Lord’s prayer because you’re not really asking him to forgive your debts. They’ve already all been forgiven, including the future ones.

Nesan:

And I distinguished it Jimmy from saying, but in a timeless perspective they’ve already been forgiven. But in time we repent and God interacts with us as we,

Horn:

But who forgives the sins? Who forgives them?

Nesan:

God? Does

Horn:

God have a temporal or a timeless perspective?

Nesan:

God is both timeless and at the same time he interacts with creatures in time.

Horn:

No. Is God timeless or is he not timeless?

Nesan:

He’s both timeless and has chosen voluntarily to enter into time since the creation of the world.

Horn:

No, I would say that’s a contradiction.

Nesan:

So I think a result, if you’re wondering yeah, to John Freeman, I don’t want

Horn:

To hijack. I’ll get to

Akin:

That to Jimmy. Okay, so two questions related to this. First one, were you forgiven before you repented? Because if you’re making an argument based on God’s timelessness and when you pray, forgive us our debts, you’re referring to past, present and future sins and God is timeless, then he forgave you timelessly on this timelessness model you’re proposing and it would seem you would be forgiven before you were even born. Is that your understanding? I

Nesan:

Think that’s what revelation means when it talks about the names of those written in the book of life before the foundations of the world. Yes.

Akin:

Okay, second question in first John, John is writing and he says, my little children, I’m writing that you may not sin. So he’s talking to Christians because he calls ’em his children and he says, I’m writing so that you may not sin, but he says, if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ, the righteous. So if he acknowledges a Christian can sin and he says that’ll be taken care of because we have an advocate with God who’s Jesus Christ. So he’s envisioning Christ up in heaven interceding for people as they commit new sins. So that would imply these sins have not yet been forgiven because you haven’t repented and Christ hasn’t yet advocated for you. So it would seem that contradicts your of you that you’ve been forgiven of future sins because there’s new action required by Jesus Christ in order to deal with the new sins you’ve committed. Would you agree with that?

Nesan:

I think that I take a different view of that. So we I take is that Christ does not bring every time I sin so that if I scold someone when I’m driving on the highway, Jesus is instantly making remedy for that by praying to the Father. No, I don’t think that’s the view. I think the intercessory work of Christ culminates all the sense that I’ve done past, present, future. I do not know the exact nature of what Jesus is saying at any given time, but I think that it’s because Jesus is interceding that I’m brought to repentance every time by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Akin:

I

Boyce:

Chime in.

Akin:

Yep, please.

Boyce:

I don’t want to interrupt. I know y’all going well. I do have

Akin:

Something I want to

Boyce:

Ask, but I’ll let you wrap it.

Akin:

I also have one too, but you first had

Boyce:

We all do alright. First, John is very emphasis, highly emphasizing the idea of fellowship with God and one another. I think that that fellowship, the sins that you’re referring to can break that. He also goes on later on to say that a believer cannot practice sin because he has the seed of God remaining in him being the Holy Spirit. So there’s an aspect to this too. That’s why we were talking about earlier in one Corinthians, this idea of continuing these mortal sins or whatever you may label them would demonstrate a person is not. However, there are sins that we do commit daily that require the grace of God and the confession. I believe in confession and absolution because I think we need it in light of how we deal with one another, not loving one another. It breaks fellowship both with the fellowship aspect. It doesn’t mean that I’m not righteous before God, but I can hinder that relationship by producing sins against the flesh of others and also against the spirit.

Akin:

Trent, you first?

Horn:

Yeah, I just have a few rapid fire questions on the history part. I didn’t want to lose track of that to make

Boyce:

Sure No, go for it.

Horn:

Yeah, that’s fair. Would you say that there is a consensus in the early church, if not universal, that baptism remits sins that we are regenerated in baptism? That’s where justification begins.

Boyce:

Absolutely.

Horn:

Okay, Samuel?

Boyce:

Yes. Yeah, consensus.

Horn:

Okay, well I’ll let either one answer. Go ahead. Go ahead. I’ll let Sam, you can chime in whenever if you want on either of you can chime in. Number two. Yeah, go ahead. Number two, was there a consensus in the early church that a true Christian one who has been justified could per lose their salvation permanently? They could lose the gift of justification, however you want to use the vocab. Could you become a true Christian then stop being a Christian permanently? Did the church believe that as a consensus?

Boyce:

I don’t know if that would be a consensus. I think there were good statements made that could lean either way and I don’t think either side can say a consensus leans with me.

Akin:

Okay. Trent, you must be telepathic because you asked exactly the question I was going to go to. Y’all have acknowledged that the early church universally believed in justification being administered through baptism. Well, it was equally universal that you can lose your salvation through, for example, apostasy. And it was obvious that Christians could commit apostasy because some of them did. And so Christians naturally including Predestines like Augustine would say, yeah, you can be genuinely justified in baptism and then you can lose it if you’re not one of those who God has predestined to persevere. So he envisioned two groups, a larger group of people who were predestined, and this is just, I’m not talking about non predestinates, but on the view of Augustine, people could be predestined to come to Christ for a time but not stay. And then there were others who weren’t even predestinate in the way Augustine was. So there was a universal consensus among early Christians that you could lose your salvation. Can you name anyone from the patristic period who was an orthodox Christian, I’m not talking about gnostics, but a church father who thought that you can not lose your salvation or was this an innovation of John Calvin’s?

Boyce:

No, going back to that, this is, I think the problem that McGrath brought up about justification is that it had such range of motion in its definition that we’re now taking Protestant terms and putting them back into the patristics again because they weren’t looking at it from the debate that we’re looking it at, oh

Horn:

Wait Jimmy, I want to hear yours. So Dr. Boyce, when St. Aaronia says the following, those who do not obey him being disinherited by him have ceased to be his sons, therefore they cannot receive his inheritance. Is he not talking about saved Christians who are no longer saved?

Boyce:

In his mind, he seems to believe that that could be the case for Iron Aus. Again, I would never dispute that every single father. That’s why I said I don’t think there’s a

Akin:

Consensus here. Hence my question. I think there is a consensus, hence my question. Can you name anybody who said it’s impossible to lose your salvation from the patristic period? Anyone? Just one? Yes.

Boyce:

I don’t think they talked about it the way we’re talking about it. I don’t

Akin:

Think in that case it seems we have,

Horn:

I disagree with that because they are talking

Akin:

About

Horn:

It. I believe that we can produce quotations where you could reach that conclusion that they deny eternal security. So let me answer this question. If we can determine a father rejected eternal security, wouldn’t we also be capable of discovering they affirmed it?

Boyce:

Well, clearly Augustine believed in eternal security and now he wouldn’t use that

Akin:

Word. Not for Christians, not for Christians in general, only for the elect within the broader group of people who have been justified,

Boyce:

Which he would limit to Christians in that regard to those who’ve been predestined to the eternal salvation. Right?

Akin:

No, no. As I said, Augustine, and this is very clear in his writings, he believed you could be predestined to come to Christ and be a genuine Christian and be justified and yet not be predestined to persevere. He distinguished between predestination to justification and predestination to final salvation. So only some of those who are predestined to be justified are also predestined to persevere until the end of life. So he didn’t believe in eternal security for all of the justified.

Boyce:

I want

Horn:

To just quickly,

Speaker 8:

Okay, go ahead. Yeah,

Horn:

I was just going to say what your thoughts were on this quotation from Augustine when he says being already regenerate and justified a believer relapses of his own will into an evil life. Assuredly he cannot say, I have not received because of his own free choice to evil, he has lost the grace of God. That sounds like Augustine saying salvation can be lost. Do you disagree?

Boyce:

Again, I think that when we’re talking about justification, there’s three dynamics to the justification he’s looking at. And this goes back to what Samuel was talking about, looking at things on an eternal plane and not because Augustine in one moment is speaking an eternal plane where God’s vision and viewpoint versus man’s viewpoint. I think the context in what he’s saying, this is much different than how you’re presenting it

Horn:

And people can perseverance 19 and decide for themselves.

Akin:

And I would say y’all been able to document a father, you

Host:

Agreed with your view. We’re going to conclude that. Alright, thank you for the cross x, appreciate it guys. Thank you so much for the energy invested in that. I really appreciate that and audience definitely getting a lot out of it as well. So we’ll jump into our q and a, just be a 15 minute q and a. And so we got our first question here. This comes from Logan. Thank you for the super chat Logan, this is for the Protestants. What happens to individual who gets saved and is cooperating with God’s grace but falls back into one of the sins mentioned in one Corinthians chapter six, who of which one cannot enter into the kingdom?

Nesan:

Yeah, lemme take that question then. So the point of Paul saying that they were wash, they were justify is to indicate that this was a state of the past. This is not a continuous state that they’re going to live in, nor can they fall back into it first. John, I can’t remember the exact chapter, it might be chapter two or three says if they left us, they never were with us and they’re going demonstrated that they were not offered from the beginning. And so when you look at Judahs, I’ll just give that as an example. Judahs not, was not saved at one point and then lost his salvation in John chapter 17 was struck. Jesus says he was doomed to destruction in John six. Jesus said he’s a devil. So it’s not like a good person who was with Jesus and then lost grace. He was the devil from the beginning.

Akin:

Did you want to say something Steven?

Boyce:

No, go ahead.

Akin:

Go ahead. So I understand the position you’re articulating. It’s Calvinism in essence, and Calvinism is of course the opinion of Calvinists. It is not the opinion of any of the historic forms of Christianity that preceded the reformation, including Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East and so forth. And it is not the opinion of most Protestants. You have numerous Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, free will and General Baptists who all agree that our future sins have not been forgiven and therefore it is quite possible for someone to fall into a sin that needs to be forgiven. And this was abundantly obvious to the Christians in the Patristic age because they saw people who were baptized and thus justified and who then went on to apostatize, particularly during the Roman persecutions. And they recognized that those who had apostatized were no longer saved and needed to be reconciled with God in the church. So you guys, I asked you repeatedly, can you name anybody who agreed with your view and you couldn’t, which just happens to illustrate the fact that belief in perseverance of the saints and eternal security in general was an innovation of John Calvin and not even Martin Luther believed it. It was really Calvin who started that.

Horn:

I’ll add a Presbyterian to Jimmy’s list there. This passage verse Corinthians six, you’re right as the famous two words, dealing with Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. Robert Gagnan has one of the best books on this subject, the Bible and homosexual practice. And in that book he writes of that passage and he’s a Presbyterian. Paul was clearly concerned that believers might return to former patterns of sinful practices including same-sex intercourse practices that could lead to loss of salvation

Host:

All. All right, let’s go on to the next question here. And this question is for Trent. He’s making a hypothetical and he says, Trent, say you had a sister who hated God and loved to sin. If on her deathbed she repentant and put her faith in Christ and nothing else, do you believe she would be saved?

Horn:

Well, I do have a sister who actually she is Christian and she’s still walking with Christ. So it would definitely be a hypothetical there. I don’t think she hates God or loves sin, but I would say that this would go for this. It’s not just a personal thing, it applies to anybody that if someone, let’s see, who has hated God loved to sin? Salvation is by faith in Christ. So if someone is moved by God’s grace and they accept God’s offer of salvation, they can be saved. The normal means are baptism. But if baptism is not possible, like you’re on your deathbed and you make a genuine act of repentance and faith in Christ, you certainly can be saved. We don’t have knowledge of every individual situation, but that can be the case. However, exceptional circumstances do not give us good guidelines for do not give us ordinary guidelines.

Akin:

No. If on her deathbed she genuinely repented of her hatred of God so that she now loves God and she repented of her love of sin so that she’s rejected sin and she’s put her faith in God, then she has justifying faith. She has formed faith. And even if she’s not able to be baptized on her deathbed, then she will be saved. Justifying faith alone will put you in a state of justification and she’ll go to heaven.

Host:

Alright, and here’s Steven,

Nesan:

You want to add anything?

Host:

Yep.

Boyce:

I mean there was a question kind of hypothetically thrown at Trent. It’d be hard to, I mean if you want to say

Nesan:

Something. Yeah, just want to add one point. Yeah, I just wanted to add, just wanted to add one more thing to this and that is that I think that this is the norm for which people are saved. I think people are baptized because of the internal work that God has done within, and you would see this in Acts chapter two, they would be convicted to their heart and they say, what must we do to be saved? And Peter would tell them to believe in Gs and to be baptized. And so I think those two things flow from one to another. It’s not just an exception. This is just genuinely the way true. Saving faith leads to baptism. And that’s what we’ve been talking about. Disagreements on that. Yes,

Horn:

Sure. But I would say in Acts two, it’s they’re not getting baptized to show they are saved. Peter’s indictment cuts them to the heart and they’re looking for a remedy in that remedy is baptism.

Boyce:

Not without faith though. Not without faith because

Horn:

They’re adults that are being spoken to.

Host:

All right, and here’s a question for Samuel. These guys got some personal questions directly of people. Alright, Samuel question. Luke chapter 10, verse 20 Was Judas written in heaven at one point then lost it.

Nesan:

Lemme read Luke chapter. Sorry, the whole thing is blurred on my screen. It’s Luke chapter

Boyce:

10. It’s very blurry. I had a hard time reading that too. Yeah,

Host:

Yeah, I’ll read it as many times as I need it is Luke chapter 10 verse 20

Akin:

That says, nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you but rejoice that your names are written in heaven. I would assume that they’re tying that to Judas because the 70 have just come back and Judas like the rest of the 12 would’ve been among the 70.

Nesan:

Yeah, I would say it’s a little bit speculative to in here.

Boyce:

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Nesan:

Yeah, no worries. But what I would say is that regardless of whether Judas was in or not to suggest that if the argument is simply that Judas was in this group and that Jesus is saying this, that means that every one of the 70 or 72 have their names written in heaven. I think that’s a little bit of conjecture. I think what we have to do is take the words of Jesus himself in John chapter six. Jesus feeds the 5,000, they follow him and the remainder is this 12. And he looks at them and says, I chose the 12 of you, yet one of you is a devil. So my argument is a simple one. Judas was not a saved person, not true. He was a genuine apostle. And that’s the scary part, right? You can be a genuine apostle minister to the ministry of Christ and still not be saved that that’s the whole point. And so I’m looking at John chapter 17 specifically for this John chapter 17, verse 12. Jesus says, I’ve not lost any of those you had given me except the one the son of petition. So he was not given to Christ. If it was not given to Christ, was his name written in heaven? I don’t think so. Why does Luke chapter 10, I can’t see the words, it’s 20 10, 20 say that. Well I’m not sure if Judas was even there to make the argument that Judas there is conjecture or speculative at best.

Horn:

And I would say it’s not speculative. If you look at Matthew 1928, Jesus says to the apostles, you who have followed me will also sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. That seems to be directed to all 12. And that would include Judas. And I couldn’t imagine that a genuine apostle who is an actual devil could really sit on a throne judging people unless at that time he was still in fellowship, he had not fallen away yet. And so that makes more sense to John 1712 when it said that I have lost none but the son of perdition that he was given over but he actually did lose something. So actually what’s interesting is that Christ says on this particular verse, he says, what it means is at least for my part, I will not lose them, but they can certainly lose their own salvation.

Boyce:

I would add in that the 12 is often the group necessarily the individuals because by the end of this there’s 14 and typically see that even in how Paul used the group of the 12 later on in first Corinthians 15, only referencing 11 of them, in fact 10 because he separated CFIs but yet he called them the 12. So I think that it’s more civic to the group than the individuals because at the end of the day, window with 14 apostles, you have Matthias, then you have Paul, and that’s how it’s even referenced in the new city in Jerusalem. So I think that could be the whole group, not every individual.

Akin:

And I’m not committed to arguing that Judas was at one time saved, but I would acknowledge that the evidence supports, at least facially supports what trenches said because Jesus does speak of the 12, including Judas sitting on 12 thrones, which on its face makes it sound like he saved. And similarly in John he says, I have lost none but this one predestined one and the verb lost implies he once had him. So at least facially that makes it sound like Judas was saved. Similarly, he says, I’ve chosen you yet one of you is a devil that says some very interesting things about the concept of election for Calvinists you can be chosen and yet be a devil.

Host:

Alright? All right. And here is another question for the Catholics in John chapter six verses 28 to 29, when Jesus was asked what the works of God are and he said, believe in the one whom he sent works equal belief. Does this not settle the discussion?

Akin:

No it doesn’t because Jesus added to the discussion later on. Like I said, we’ve got to read John as a, and in John 15 Jesus says that if you want to remain in him, you need to keep his commandments. And he says, my commandment is love one another. So part of what believing in the sun means is embracing not just believe that Jesus is real or that Jesus died for you or something, but believe in his teachings. That’s part of believing in Jesus is believing in what he taught us and he taught us that if we want to remain in him, we need to have love and we need to act on that.

Horn:

And that’s why John 3 36 says, he who believes in the Son has eternal life. He who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. So belief is a prerequisite to obedience, but belief in and of itself is not sufficient if it’s not followed by obedience, what you believe in.

Boyce:

I’ll even add that Jesus in this chapter, I’ll go team Catholic for a minute, sorry, I’ll add in this chapter in John six abiding. Well we are reformed Catholics in Anglicanism, so we are there halfway. But when you look at it, he talks about abiding process. The abiding that I think Jimmy’s referring to in 15 is also mentioned in chapter six that eating the flesh and drinking his blood is the process in which what we do abide because he says, whoever does not eat my flesh and does not drink my blood will not abide in me. So I think that the action here is beyond just belief, it’s not belief. And then that settles the debate. I mean if that was a case, this debate would’ve been over two hours ago. There is a aspect to where that faith is in a biding process that’s continuing and it’s even sacrament is being presented in it. And I do not think you can separate the sacrament from salvation. I just don’t.

Akin:

Marlon, just a bookkeeping question. How long on our 15 minute q and a at this point

Host:

It’s about a minute and 30 seconds left.

Horn:

Maybe get a question with a one word answer for us.

Host:

Yeah, all. So have to throw that at you all we’re

Boyce:

Apologists we’re a

Horn:

Hazard of theologians, a apologists and pastors.

Host:

Yeah, exactly, exactly.

Akin:

Pastors.

Boyce:

Yes.

Host:

So this will probably be the final question of the q and a here. Do Protestants interpret this verse for whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind and have you forgotten that he was cleansed from his past sins? I going to ask how do you interpret that verse? Yeah, how do you interpret that?

Nesan:

Yeah, so can you hear me because I lost my, I just dropped out for a while.

Host:

No, we can hear you

Boyce:

Here. Oh

Nesan:

Great. So that’s in second Peter one, nine. And Peter is actually telling them that if you don’t see these qualities in a person, namely fate, supplementing their faith with virtue, virtue with steadfastness, steadfastness with godliness, godliness with I think it was self-control and readily affectionate. If you don’t see these qualities then the problem is that this person forgot that they were washed. And so the goal of Christian discipleship and often teach from this passage is reminder, which is why from verses 13 to 15, same chapter second Peter one, 13 to 15, Peter says, I see it fit to remind you. I want to remind you while I’m still in this body, it’s good for me to remind you. I know the putting off of my body will be soon, but I’ll make every attempt that after I’m gone you may be able to recall these things.

The goal of Christian discipleship is reminding so that when someone is genuinely saved, they don’t lose your salvation. No. If they live the lifestyle that is mentioned in fiscal Corinthians six, nine to 10, then they were never saved to begin with. That’s the position I hold now. Sure they can be part of the local church in which sense they’re saved in the sense of they’re participating in the sacraments, they’re doing the things they look safe for all intents and purposes like Juah did, but they’re not saved in the election sense, which is why the Knicks was afterwards nine a second Peter one 10 confirm your election. That’s the whole point of discipleship.

Akin:

And as Richard Balcomb points out the confirm, your election can be understood either in terms of feeling subjectively certain or objectively confirming it so that you don’t lose your status as one of the chosen. Peter also clarifies this matter in the next chapter where he’s talking about people who have turned back from the faith and he says that these individuals promise the freedom while they themselves are slaves of depravity if they have escaped the corruption of this world by knowing our savior and Lord Jesus Christ. So these are genuine Christians and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would’ve been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and turned their backs on it. So Peter explicitly envisions the possibility of genuine Christians losing their salvation just in the very next chapter.

Boyce:

I would just add that I think those are referring back to the whole text that they were a part of the benefits of the community of grace. They were receiving and partaking of these very things that are promised. And through Christ’s love for his church, they were in the community of grace benefiting from the community of grace and instead of embracing and receiving grace, they actually distorted it, turned away from it, used it for lascivious and they actually turned people away from it with themselves and that was the greater damnation that it had been better for them never to have been in that state than to be in that state and to turn from that state. I don’t think it was something personalized, I think it’s something they benefited from by being in the community of grace.

Host:

Alright guys, thank you so much guys for that fantastic q and a. We are going to close, I don’t know if you guys want to shrink the closing down to maybe five minutes. I know we agreed seven minutes, but time is, or we could, I don’t know if you guys want to just end it here or do you guys want to do the closing? How you guys want to do it?

Horn:

I feel like everything’s been kind of said. How do you guys

Boyce:

Feel? Yeah, I agree. Oh, I agree.

Akin:

Since it’s unjust to introduce new topics in a closing statement, I was just going to repeat some of the highlights of what I said, so

Host:

Got you. I’m

Nesan:

Fine ending it here. Yeah.

Host:

Alright, fair enough. You guys are great. I really appreciate you guys man, because you guys are, I’m listening to you guys and I’m just digesting everything you guys are saying, man. I really enjoyed the conversation. I really, again appreciate you guys and it’s an honor to be able to host you guys, man. It really is to be able to have you guys on and I definitely appreciate you guys taking your time forth from your families and whatever else you guys could be doing to spend it with me and this audience on the gospel truth, man. So with that said, do you guys have any closing words before I let you guys go?

Akin:

I just want to say, and I’m sure Trent agrees, we appreciate you very much, Marlon, for hosting us. We appreciate Samuel and Steven for their interaction, including their cordiality. We disagree on some stuff, but we’ve had a productive exchange and I just want to extend a sincere thanks to everybody.

Horn:

Same.

Nesan:

Yeah, I just want to thank you Marlon. Thanks Steven. And especially thanks to Jimmy and Trent as well. Really, really enjoyed engaging with you guys. Thank you.

Boyce:

Yeah, same guys. I really appreciate it. Good host, Marlon. You always do a good job.

Host:

I appreciate that man. Steve, I appreciate you man. Thank you man. I appreciate that’s Encourag.

Boyce:

Need better software, you need better software,

Host:

Whatever it is. All operator error, man. Operator error buddy. Operator error. But nonetheless guys, you guys are great, man. You guys enjoy the rest of your evening and what you have left of it anyway. And you guys, I’ll be looking forward to perhaps engaging with you guys once again. You got to be blessed. All right.