Now comes a verse that is difficult to understand — Rom 11:25.
Rom 11:25 – 25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in…
Israel is cut off and hardened for a period of time so that the full number of Gentiles can be grafted in and saved.
Then in Rom 11:26-27, he mentions that all Israel will be saved and he reminds his readers of the covenant that God made with his people. A covenant involves two parties. And this harkens back to the Old Testament when the Israelites hardened their heart toward God and broke their side of the covenant but God gave them chance after chance to repent and turn back.
And sometimes during that history, the Israelites repented and tore down their idols and put away their religion and returned to God. Other times, they ignored God’s warning and suffered the consequences.
If Timothy grew up and became a drug addict, I’d probably have to cut him off and kick him out of the house so that he would come to his senses. But that doesn’t mean that he’d stop being my son. That’s our covenant, our blood line. And Paul uses that covenant language when speaking about Israel. They are cut off, but this is a temporary cutting off or a temporary hardening because the covenant God made with them from the days of Abraham still stands. Isn’t that what a covenant means?
Then, more confusing verses in v29 — Israel may be cut off now, but we read about God’s irrevocable gifts and call. That sounds like assurance of salvation. Meaning once you are saved, you cannot lose your salvation because God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
So how do we reconcile these two sides? Are we cut off from God and does this mean that we can lose our salvation? Or is it more accurate to say that once you are saved and God establishes a covenant with you, even though you stray, God’s gifts and call are irrevocable so you cannot lose your salvation? There are proponents on both sides.
One of my former coworkers was a very fundamentalist Catholic. And he was very evangelistic because he believed that Protestants were not saved. So while I was reaching out to him before I knew he was a Catholic, he was reaching out to me and he brought his friend who was also a die-hard Catholic and they were tag teaming and trying to convert me. And his theology is that you have to be constantly confessing your sins and trembling before God because you can lose your salvation even in the final moments before your death. That’s one extreme. And you got the other extreme, once saved, always saved. And I never have to examine myself. I got my ticket to heaven because I raised my hand at a retreat and I prayed a sinner’s prayer when I was in junior high so I don’t need to sweat it.
So which is it? Does being cut off mean you can lose your salvation? Or is it that once you are saved, you can have assurance of salvation because God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable? Or maybe it’s somewhere in between — as in the case of Israel, is it more accurate to say that you are only cut off temporarily so that God can discipline you until you are ready to turn back.
Which one is it? Paul’s answer in Rom 11:25 — it’s a mystery. Haha, you were waiting for the punch line, weren’t you? But I am not giving you one! I warned you at the outset. We will never know this side of eternity what this cutting off means precisely. Sounds like an earlier message I gave in Romans, doesn’t it? Again, we must live in this tension. Because it’s a mystery. That’s why Romans 11 ends with v33-34.
Rom 11:33-34 – 33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”
There are just many things God never intended for us to figure out. Where God is deliberately unclear in His Word, we should not insist on our theological position.
In this tension, in this mystery, one thing is unmistakable — God is both kind and stern. God’s gifts and his calling are irrevocable and we are grafted in by grace even though we deserve to be cast into the eternal fires. God is gracious beyond comprehension. At the same time, God is just and this judgment of God leads to certain people being cut off and others grafted in. And we live in this tension.
And in that mystery, we have to realize that if God’s chosen people, the Israelites, can be cut off in any sense of that word that we think cut off means, then we better watch out. We should not be arrogant, but tremble.
The natural question then is, what are we trembling about? I submit to you that the key question we have to ask ourselves today and for the rest of our lives is this — Is Christ at the root of my salvation, and hence, my life?
Jesus is the culmination of the law. That’s one way to say Christ is at the core. And we are saying the same thing again today — Jesus is the root of our salvation.
I think you misunderstood my “fundamentalist” on the Catholic view of salvation. No we don’t simply believe Protestants go to hell because they’re outside the Church. I talked to this “fundie” and he has never said or suggested a thing. So it is not fair to call him out on something he hasn’t said not defines the Catholic position on Christians outside the Catholic Church. It must be clear that Christians outside the Church who know the truth of the Church and willfully reject it (including perhaps ex-Catholics) are effectively rejecting Christ because this is the Church He founded. However if one is “invincibly ignorant” and does not know the truth claims of the Church, perhaps a Christian who never came across Catholicism, then he is only responsible for what he knows and may be saved. Ultimately, this is God’s decision and invincible ignorance is not something we want to take a chance on. Everyone should have that opportunity to enter in Holy Mother Church.
And I want to touch on “losing your salvation,” which Catholics hold to be true and not an “extreme” position as you claim. I’ve discussed with Jason this numerous times and here’s my initial argument:
The Catholic position is that we are saved, by Jesus’ death on the Cross. Without the Crucifixion, none of us are saved. However, due to mortal, unrepentant sin, we can lose our salvation. Salvation isn’t just a single point in time, but a process until death. Because, unfortunately, even as Christians, we still sin. And often, we can sin badly. Catholics have the Sacrament of Reconciliation, a true gift from God, because we have a point in time where we know we sincerely repented.
You are saved or not saved because you can become “not saved” by losing your salvation.
Examples in Scripture, and I will use the Protestant NIV:
Mark 13:13 “Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” Conversely, one who does not stand firm in the end will not be saved. The implication being that this person is already a Christian, standing firm in the faith.
Philippians 2:12-17 “12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
14 Do everything without grumbling or arguing, 15 so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.”[a] Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky 16 as you hold firmly to the word of life. And then I will be able to boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain.”
John 15:1-4 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.”
Since Christ said we are the “branches,” and He is the Vine, then in this verse, John 15:1-4, He clearly states that the Father “cuts off every branch that bears no fruit.” He’s not talking about unbelievers, but believers who don’t produce good works. This makes a strong case for losing your salvation and debunks “never been saved in the first place” because Christ Himself said that the branches were part of the vine, but were “cut off.”
So how do you reconcile the fact that Christ said the Father cuts off a branch and you saying “a branch is part of the vine or not” when the branch was part of the vine to begin with?
This isn’t a temporary cut off because you don’t glue branches to the vine back.
Losing one’s salvation vs. someone never being saved to begin with are two ways of reaching the same point. Again, it’s the fruit of one’s life that counts. Does one stand to the end and overcome and does his or her life bear fruit over a period of time? To me, whether you lose your salvation or you were never saved to begin with because there is no fruit over the long haul are the same thing.
“To me, whether you lose your salvation or you were never saved to begin with because there is no fruit over the long haul are the same thing.”
It doesn’t make any logical sense. Why does having something (salvation) and losing it the *same* as someone not having something (salvation) to begin with? What about the Christian man who fervently accepts Christ, but due a crisis in his life (we must remember that just because we’re Christian, doesn’t mean the difficulties and struggles end), leaves the faith for one reason or another? How can you tell that this person was “never saved” to begin with? It sounds arbitrary, don’t you think?
Protestants like to entertain the idea of “never saved to begin with” because they’re beginning to see the error of “onced saved always saved” but don’t want to tiptoe to the Catholic position.
Regarding your point, there are verses that support both positions. What value is there in trying to argue for a position that you cannot prove. No one will know for sure until you get to heaven anyway, right?
Are you trying to prove that you are superior because you are a Catholic and only Catholics have 100% correct doctrine? Why make Catholic and Protestant distinctions anyway? I just care about Christianity and/or Christians.
My main point is fruit–do you have it or not? Only fruit counts. Beatitudes or spiritual fruit – these are the marks of a born again Christian.
One question that comes to mind and this is used by a well known Catholic apologist. If lets say a devout Baptist minister were to convert to Catholicism, is that Baptist minister still saved? After all, many Baptist communities don’t even view Catholics as Christians. Or even use the example of Mormons, who denies basic tenants of the Christian faith, such as the Trinity?
Again, there is no reason to stereotype Baptists. I believe anyone who believes in the true gospel and who bears fruit in keeping with true repentance is saved.
Many Protestant denominations, in particular more fundamentalist ones, do not consider Catholics to be authentic Christians and that’s not a stereotype. It’s certainly better now than it was in the past, but you’ll find that this is relatively
But that doesn’t answer the question I posed.