![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2026\/04\/LutherAugustine.jpg\")
<\/a>Nathan Rinne<\/a> has a degree in theology and is a vicar of Clam Falls Lutheran Church<\/a> in Wisconsin. This congregation is part of the American Association of Lutheran Churches <\/a>(AALC), which is a small traditional Lutheran denomination (56 congregation and about 16,000 members), but in association with Missouri Synod Lutheranism<\/a> (which has about 1.7 million members; where he is a layman). Well-known YouTube apologist Rev. Jordan Cooper<\/a> is also a member of the AALC. Nathan and I engaged in several substantive and cordial dialogues in 2011. I have always regarded those exchanges with great fondness. He responds very slowly, but when he does, there is always a lot of substance.<\/p>\n Nathan has written a treatise called Response to Dave Armstrong to His Responses to My Reformation Day Sermon<\/em><\/a>. I had written a fairly long critique of his sermon (preached on 10-26-25<\/a>) in Facebook messages. In 2023 I had offered a very lengthy critique<\/a> of another of his \u2014 apparently yearly \u2014 \u201cReformation\u201d celebratory sermons (never replied to, as far as I know). I often quote every single word of the person I am debating, but Nathan\u2019s reply is 40 pages long, so I\u2019ll have to be selective and concentrate on the \u201cmeat\u201d, lest this go on forever and exhaust weary readers (my response is in two parts and over 18,000 words as it is). His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. My words that he cites from my private critique will be in green<\/span>. I use RSV for Bible citations.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I very much like the full-time Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong, who is not only a good guy, but a great guy to interact with about theology, at the very least for someone of my own particular disposition. . . .\u00a0<\/span>I think that Dave often presents some extremely challenging blog posts that most people who are Protestant or Lutheran do not give enough thought to.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I thank Nathan for the kind words. I think he\u2019s a class act, and I\u2019ve always admired and respected the fact that he can engage in passionate dialogue with theological opponents, minus the slightest hostility, vitriol, or rancor. And he says, \u201c<\/span>I am full of zeal\u201d<\/span>: which I always appreciate, too. <\/span>I\u2019ll always be willing to dialogue with him for that reason, as well as his obvious skill in debate.<\/p>\n I fear he is under a massive and powerful satanic delusion, that \u2013 like the proverbial frog in the kettle \u2013 ever so gradually pulls him away from the true Jesus of the holy scriptures.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Always good to receive a vote of confidence and affirmation like that! Nathan is nothing if not blunt! This is far more melodramatic than I would ever be in describing a Protestant. I simply call them esteemed brothers and sisters in Christ, with whom I have honest disagreements. All falsehood has some relation to Satan, the father of lies, I suppose.<\/p>\n My hope is that the responses here in this blog post will also gradually take root and become things that Dave is unable to get out of his mind, until the Holy Spirit persuades him of the truth.<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise. I believe that Catholicism is the fullness of theological and spiritual truth, so I hope \u2014 with the necessary aid of God\u2019s grace and the Holy Spirit\u2019s promptings \u2014 to persuade anyone of it, in its entirety. And \u2014 all<\/em> glory to God \u2014 by reports that I receive, probably at least 500 people by now (after 33 years of being published and 30 years online) have become Catholics or returned to the Catholic faith partially as a result of reading my materials.<\/p>\n And yes, I, too, say that that\u2019s because of the inherent power of \u201ctruth\u201d<\/span> \u2014 not because of me being anything significant in the scheme of things. May the man with the most truth (whoever<\/em> he is) prevail in this debate! I changed from evangelical to Catholic. I can and will change again if I am persuaded. But I haven\u2019t had the slightest inclination to do that these past 35 years. The weakness of opposing arguments only ever strengthens my existing beliefs.<\/p>\n First, we need to be saved from sin, which precedes justification. <\/span><\/p>\n Of course we do. There is no disagreement here between Catholics and Lutherans. We\u2019re neither Pelagians nor semi-Pelagians, despite being constantly characterized as one or the other by Lutherans and other Protestants for 500 years. We need not wrangle over areas of complete agreement.<\/p>\n Nathan quotes Catholic (?) scholar Jesse Couenhoven <\/span>contending that Augustine thought concupiscence was a sin (\u201che obstinately calls it sin\u201d)<\/span>. I edited a book called The Quotable Augustine<\/em> (2012). In it I cite his work, On Marriage and Concupiscence<\/em>, from the year 420:<\/p>\n In the case, however, of the regenerate, concupiscence is not itself sin any longer, whenever they do not consent to it for illicit works, and when the members are not applied by the presiding mind to perpetrate such deeds. (I, 25 [XXIII] )<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia<\/em> (General editor, Allan D. Fitzgerald, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1999; 902 large pages and in my own library), in its three-page entry, \u201cConcupiscence\u201d notes in agreement:<\/p>\n Augustine\u2019s mature position, then, is that by virtue of baptism the concupiscence in the soul ceases to be eternally disastrous; it no longer has the power, by itself, to be sin and so to make the person guilty, but it remains in the soul and is still a disorder and a ready (not, in principle, a necessary) cause of sin . . . (p. 224)<\/p>\n Concupiscence . . . is, in both the crucial aspects, not sin: it is not actual sin but rather is described as something that is likely to lead to it; and, since its loss of complete control over the human soul is now part of its definition, it is no longer original sin either . . . (p. 225)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Regarding justification, it was only later on, certainly post-1530 \u2013 and I think quite a bit later still \u2013 when the Lutherans stopped giving the impression that justification was <\/span>the exact same thing as regeneration.<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n Yes, because it was Melanchthon who changed the doctrine of justification by separating sanctification from it, contrary to all previous Christian soteriological tradition from Augustine on, according to Anglican Church historian Alister McGrath in his acclaimed book Iustitia Dei<\/em>, that I just received last Christmas.\u00a0He wrote on p. 212 (4th<\/sup> edition, 2020):<\/p>\n By the mid-1530s, Melanchthon was becoming increasingly open about a divergence between the Wittenberg theology and Augustine over the issue of justifying righteousness . . .<\/p>\n For Osiander, the emerging Melanchthonian concept of justification as \u2018declaring righteous\u2019 was unacceptable . . . We see here an unequivocal reassertion of a fundamentally Augustinian understanding of the nature<\/em> of justification, especially in relation to the real interior transformation of an individual through the indwelling of God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then McGrath noted on p. 213 that \u201cThe Formula of Concord<\/em> (1577) . . . generally presents justification in strongly extrinsic terms.\u201d I happened to have noted recently<\/a> that Luther himself kept justification and baptismal regeneration close together, if not identical. D. Patrick Ramsey, pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC) in London, Kentucky, examined the issue in his article,\u00a0\u201cSola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Baptism\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(Thermelios<\/em>, Vol. 34, Issue 2, July 2009), and observed (against his own<\/em>\u00a0opinion, by the way):<\/p>\n One of the main burdens of Jonathan Trigg\u2019s recent book on Luther\u2019s theology of baptism, which is based upon his doctoral dissertation, is to demonstrate that \u201cthe doctrine of justification by faith is intimately related to\u2014indeed predicated upon\u2014Luther\u2019s understanding of the abiding covenant of baptism\u201d [Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther<\/i>\u00a0(Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 2]. Although it may appear that there are tensions in his thought, \u201cLuther\u2019s baptismal doctrine, properly understood, is one of his sharpest expressions of justification by faith\u201d [Ibid<\/em>., 226; see also 151]. Similarly, Paul Althaus maintains that Luther\u2019s \u201cdoctrine of baptism is basically nothing else than his doctrine of justification in concrete form.\u201d [The Theology of Martin Luther<\/i>\u00a0(trans. Robert C. Schultz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 356].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I was pointing out similar things about Luther 16 years ago in my articles, Luther on Theosis & Sanctification<\/a> [11-23-09] and\u00a0Martin Luther: Faith Alone is\u00a0Not<\/em>\u00a0Lawless Antinomianism<\/a> [2-28-10].<\/p>\n That was a later development and I\u2019d suggest not one that necessarily had to happen, strictly speaking\u2026 <\/span><\/p>\n I agree, because it was a further departure from the soteriology of Augustine and the fathers, medieval tradition, and the Bible. But it appears to have been endorsed in the Book of Concord<\/em>.<\/p>\n Again, I submit it is very likely that the distinction between justification and regeneration would not have been seen as necessary by the Lutherans had a man like Benedict been at the helm.<\/span><\/p>\n An error is an error; a falsehood is a falsehood. One can\u2019t blame a theological opponent (not even Big Bad Boogeyman \/ Whore of Babylon \u201cRome\u201d!) for their own decisions to adopt error. Everyone is responsible for their own creeds and confessions. Melanchthon was basically a chameleon and a weak reed. He was, for example, at one point in favor of capital punishment for the denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist: a position he later adopted himself! Luther was too undisciplined in language and unskilled at systematic thinking to write a normative theology, and so left it to Melanchthon, to the detriment of Lutheranism, in my opinion.<\/p>\n Faith alone but not alone[?]. Then why say it\u2019s alone at all then? Why not just say what we and the Church fathers say: faith and works are organically connected?<\/span><\/p>\n Of course they are organically connected! We can and do say this in the proper context. After all, in 1st Corinthians 13, the Apostle Paul says that love always trusts, and trust is a critical part of faith. Faith, or trust, naturally grows into love, and then love always trusts, meaning trust as fierce loyalty.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The reason that a distinction needs to be made here <\/span>at times<\/span><\/i> is because though the law is fulfilled in love, the Apostle Paul \u2013 as Chemnitz first talked about in his <\/span>Examination of the Council of Trent<\/span><\/i> \u2013 nevertheless uses exclusive particles like \u201calone\u201d, \u201cfreely\u201d, \u201cwithout works\u201d, \u201capart from works\u201d, \u201cnot of works\u201d, \u201cfaith is counted as righteousness\u201d, etc. to remove all human merit, works, and dignity from the act of justification before God, that is, being able to stand before him in his presence in peace.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Most if not all of those refer to monergistic initial justification, in conjunction with baptism. The rest are explained by the New Persective on Paul<\/a>. What Nathan needs to grapple with are the many Pauline statements that contradict Protestant faith alone<\/em>. I drew these twenty from my article, 50 Unanswerable NT Passages Against \u201cFaith Alone\u201d<\/a> [2-21-26]:<\/p>\n Romans 2:6-8<\/strong>\u00a0For he will\u00a0render to every man\u00a0according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in\u00a0well-doing\u00a0seek for glory and honor and immortality,\u00a0he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not\u00a0obey the truth, but obey\u00a0wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.<\/p>\n Romans 2:9-10<\/strong>\u00a0There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.<\/p>\n Romans 2:13-16<\/strong>\u00a0For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.<\/p>\n Romans 6:22<\/strong>\u00a0But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 13:2, 13<\/strong>\u00a0And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. . . . [13] So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 5:10<\/strong>\u00a0For we must all appear before the\u00a0judgment\u00a0seat of Christ, so that\u00a0each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done\u00a0in the body.<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 13:5<\/strong>\u00a0Examine yourselves, to see whether you are\u00a0holding to\u00a0your faith.\u00a0Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? \u2014 unless indeed you fail to\u00a0meet the test!<\/p>\n Galatians 5:14, 19-21<\/strong>\u00a0For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, \u201cYou shall love your neighbor as yourself.\u201d . . . [19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, [21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n Galatians 6:7-9<\/strong>\u00a0Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. [9] And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.<\/p>\n Philippians 2:12-13<\/strong>\u00a0Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.<\/p>\n Philippians 3:8-16<\/strong>\u00a0Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ [9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; [10] that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, [11] that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12]\u00a0Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.\u00a0[13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, [14] I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. [15] Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. [16] Only let us hold true to what we have attained.<\/p>\n Colossians 3:20, 23-25<\/strong>\u00a0Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. . . . [23] Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, [24] knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. [25] For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 3:12-13\u00a0<\/strong>. . . may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you, [13] so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. (cf. 4:1)<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8\u00a0<\/strong>. . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, [8] inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. . . .<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:13<\/strong>\u00a0But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be\u00a0saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 2:15<\/strong>\u00a0Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 4:8, 10<\/strong>\u00a0. . . godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. . . . [10] For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. . . .<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 4:12-16<\/strong>\u00a0Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. [13] Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. [14] Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. [15] Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. [16] Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 6:11-12\u00a0<\/strong>But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.\u00a0[12] Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 6:18-19<\/strong>\u00a0They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n No Protestant has answered these yet (and I have 150<\/a> in a larger collection). One Lutheran guy attempted it but after a few of them he mostly repeated \u2014 over and over \u2014 the same platitudes as \u201creplies.\u201d Then he became angry with me after I counter-replied. If you guys want to live by Scripture alone as your rule of faith, by all means do it. But to do so, you can\u2019t just ignore or rationalize away 150 relevant passages. I routinely cited 5, 10, 15 or more times more Scripture than my Protestant opponents in any given debate. And they routinely ignore them. That isn\u2019t gonna impress any neutral or open-minded observer.<\/p>\n Luther, of course, was the same way, concerned greatly with the politics, culture, even issues of nationality as well!: Rome\u2019s deep corruption and its taking advantage of Germany. <\/span>The intense lack of trust is palpable.<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n Sure. He also expressed outrage about the state of affairs in his own ranks, as I have documented (and this was a brand-new, supposedly oh-so-spiritually superior \u201creform\u201d movement):<\/p>\n Martin Luther: \u201cOur manner of life is as evil as is that of the papists\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[12-29-07]<\/p>\n Luther on Early Lutherans: \u201cIngrates\u201d Who Deserve God\u2019s \u201cWrath\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[2-28-10]<\/p>\n Luther on Early Lutheran Degeneracy & Bad Witness<\/a>\u00a0[3-2-10]<\/p>\n Luther: Monks & Priests More \u201cEarnest\u201d Than Lutherans<\/a>\u00a0[11-10-11]<\/p>\n Luther: I Was a Better Christian as a Catholic<\/a>\u00a0[6-5-24]<\/p>\n Luther Feared Lutherans \u201cEven Worse Than Papists\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[7-10-24]<\/p>\n Luther: \u201cAll\u201d Lutherans \u201cIndulge\u201d In \u201cLicense\u201d & \u201cVices\u201d (+ Luther\u2019s ignoring of the biblical motif of \u201cYou will know them by their fruits\u201d [Matthew 7:16] )<\/a>\u00a0[7-10-24]<\/p>\n Pope Benedict, the former Cardinal Ratzinger, at least seemed like a breath of fresh and fair air to many, and I think really did begin to win some trust among the many of even the most conservative Lutherans.<\/span><\/p>\n I hate to disappoint Nathan, but he was not all that different from any other pope (though they all have their emphases and strengths and weaknesses). Remember, he was the guiding force behind the document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that he led at the time: Dominus Iesus<\/em><\/a> (6 August 2000). Here are some excerpts that I don\u2019t think Nathan would be very excited about:<\/p>\n 16. . . . The Catholic faithful are required to profess<\/i>\u00a0that there is an historical continuity \u2013 rooted in the apostolic succession53<\/sup>\u00a0\u2013 between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: \u201cThis is the single Church of Christ\u2026 which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter\u2019s pastoral care (cf.\u00a0Jn<\/i>\u00a021:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf.\u00a0Mt<\/i>\u00a028:18ff.), erected for all ages as \u2018the pillar and mainstay of the truth\u2019 (1 Tim<\/i>\u00a03:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in<\/i>] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him\u201d\u200c.54<\/sup>\u00a0 With the expression\u00a0subsistit in,<\/i>\u00a0the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that \u201coutside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth\u201d\u200c,55<\/sup>\u00a0that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56<\/sup>\u00a0But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that \u201cthey derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church\u201d\u200c.57<\/sup><\/p>\n 17.\u00a0 Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58<\/sup>\u00a0The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59<\/sup>\u00a0Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60<\/sup><\/p>\n On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61<\/sup>\u00a0are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62<\/sup>\u00a0Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63<\/sup><\/p>\n \u201cThe Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection \u2013 divided, yet in some way one \u2013 of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach\u201d\u200c.64<\/sup>\u00a0In fact, \u201cthe elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities\u201d\u200c.65<\/sup>\u00a0\u201cTherefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church\u201d\u200c.66<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Catholics believe we can have a moral assurance if we have examined ourselves and we are free of unrepentant mortal sin, but not absolute assurance. And we believe this because of the Bible\u2026.<\/span><\/p>\n In a YouTube video talking about Romans 2, Dave talked about how nobody could know <\/span>for sure<\/span><\/i> unless they had a revelation from God \u2013 even if they are faithful men and women fully committed to the Church of Rome.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m glad to hear him say this, because I don\u2019t often hear what I believe is this genuine Roman Catholic teaching put so plainly: you can have a moral assurance, but <\/span>there is no way you can know for sure.<\/span><\/i> It is interesting to think about what our lives would be like if we had this kind of understanding about all of our other close relationships! What if a young child does not have the peace and assurance that he may stand in the presence of his father <\/span>without fear that a separation is looming?<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n The problem with this analysis is that St. Paul disagrees with it. Here are 23 passages from him:<\/p>\n Romans 11:20-22<\/strong>\u00a0. . . They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. [21] For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. [22] Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God\u2019s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 9:27<\/strong>\u00a0but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 10:5-6<\/strong>\u00a0Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. [6]\u00a0Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 10:12<\/strong>\u00a0Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 13:5<\/strong>\u00a0Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? \u2014 unless indeed you fail to meet the test!<\/p>\n Galatians 1:6<\/strong>\u00a0I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel<\/p>\n Galatians 3:1-4<\/strong>\u00a0O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?\u00a0[2] Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? [3] Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? [4] Did you experience so many things in vain? \u2014 if it really is in vain.<\/p>\n Galatians 4:9\u00a0<\/strong>but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?<\/p>\n Galatians 5:1<\/strong>\u00a0. . . stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . .<\/p>\n Galatians 5:4<\/strong>\u00a0You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.<\/p>\n Galatians 5:7<\/strong>\u00a0You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?<\/p>\n Ephesians 6:10-13<\/strong>\u00a0Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.\u00a0[11] Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. [12] For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. [13] Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.<\/p>\n Philippians 3:11-13<\/strong>\u00a0that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12]\u00a0Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.\u00a0[13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; . . .<\/p>\n Colossians 1:22-23<\/strong>\u00a0he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, [23] provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, . . .<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:3<\/strong>\u00a0Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [KJV: \u201ca falling away\u201d] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition,<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 1:19<\/strong>\u00a0. . . By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith,<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 4:1<\/strong>\u00a0Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 5:15<\/strong>\u00a0For some have already strayed after Satan.<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 6:10<\/strong>\u00a0For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 1:15<\/strong>\u00a0You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, and among them Phy\u2019gelus and Hermog\u2019enes.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:12<\/strong>\u00a0. . . if we deny him, he also will deny us;<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:16-18<\/strong>\u00a0Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, [17] and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenae\u2019us and Phile\u2019tus, [18] who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 4:3-4<\/strong>\u00a0For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For many more passages, see: Falling Away (Apostasy): 150 Biblical Passages<\/a>\u00a0(+\u00a0<\/strong>Catalogue of Sixty Traits That Apostates Formerly Possessed When They Were in God\u2019s Good Graces)<\/a> [11-19-24].<\/p>\n The analysis is straightforward from these scriptural and Pauline premises: we don\u2019t know the future<\/em>. We\u2019re limited, finite creatures. Paul says that people have fallen away and that believers could possibly do so in the future: even his readers, and so he warns them to be vigilant and persevering by God\u2019s grace so that this doesn\u2019t happen. Hence, Catholic theology holds to a moral assurance of salvation: we examine ourselves to make sure we are not in any mortal sin. If we aren\u2019t, we can have a high assurance that we are in God\u2019s good graces, and will be saved if we continue to be free from such serious sins. If we are in serious sin, we repent, confess, receive absolution and proceed forward. Venial sins can be confessed directly to God if one prefers, and every Mass has general absolution for those sins, too.<\/p>\n So, just what exactly is \u201ca moral assurance\u201d?<\/span><\/i> It does not sound very strong to me and it sounds like it\u2019s based on something in me instead of God\u2019s promise of forgiveness in Jesus Christ.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n