The Doctrine of Eternal Security

by | May 18, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

The Doctrine of Eternal Security: A Critical Biblical Examination
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/18/20205

Introduction
Among Christianity’s most enduring theological debates stands the question of salvation’s permanence: Once a person accepts Jesus Christ as Savior, is their eternal destiny irrevocably secured? The doctrine of “eternal security”—often expressed in the phrase “once saved, always saved”—has become a cornerstone of many Protestant denominations and evangelical movements. This belief suggests that, following genuine conversion, a believer cannot lose their salvation regardless of subsequent behavior or spiritual condition.

Richard T. Ritenbaugh’s analysis challenges this doctrine, presenting a biblical case that salvation requires not only initial acceptance of Christ but continued obedience and spiritual growth. This essay examines the scriptural foundations of this perspective, explores the theological implications of both positions, and considers the profound impact these views have on Christian living.

The Origins of Eternal Security Doctrine
The eternal security doctrine finds its modern expression largely in Reformed and Baptist traditions, but Ritenbaugh traces its conceptual roots to a much earlier source—Satan’s deception in Eden. When God warned that sin would result in death, the serpent countered, “You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4), effectively promising humanity immunity from the ultimate consequence of disobedience.

This ancient false assurance, Ritenbaugh suggests, finds its theological parallel in the modern belief that once God’s grace covers a person, no future action can sever their relationship with Him. Just as the serpent promised immortality regardless of behavior, the doctrine of eternal security appears to offer salvation regardless of post-conversion conduct.

The doctrine gained particular prominence during the Protestant Reformation, when theologians like John Calvin developed systematic frameworks emphasizing God’s sovereignty in salvation. Calvin’s doctrine of the “perseverance of the saints” maintained that those truly elected by God would invariably persevere in faith. Later interpretations, particularly in American evangelicalism, sometimes transformed this nuanced position into a more simplified “once saved, always saved” formula that minimized the necessity of ongoing sanctification.

Biblical Challenges to Eternal Security
Ritenbaugh identifies several key scriptural passages that directly challenge the doctrine of eternal security:

The Warning in Hebrews 10:26-31
Perhaps the most direct biblical challenge comes from Hebrews 10:26-27: “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.”

This passage explicitly addresses those who have “received the knowledge of the truth”—converted believers—and warns that willful, persistent sin can place them beyond the reach of Christ’s sacrifice. The writer continues with a sobering comparison: if those who rejected Moses’ law died without mercy, how much worse punishment awaits those who have “trampled the Son of God underfoot” and “insulted the Spirit of grace” (verses 29-30).

Such language would be meaningless if salvation could never be lost. Why warn believers about judgment if their eternal security was guaranteed regardless of conduct?

Paul’s Teaching on Judgment in Romans 2
Ritenbaugh highlights Romans 2:1-16 as particularly problematic for eternal security advocates. Here, Paul writes to believers that God “will render to each one according to his deeds,” promising “eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality,” but “indignation and wrath” to “those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth” (verses 6-8).

This passage establishes a clear connection between behavior and ultimate outcome, even for believers. Paul’s assertion that “the doers of the law will be justified” (verse 13) directly contradicts the notion that justification comes solely through initial faith without regard for subsequent obedience.

Jesus’ Vine Analogy in John 15
Jesus’ teaching in John 15:1-8 provides perhaps the most vivid illustration challenging eternal security. Christ describes himself as the vine and believers as branches, stating unequivocally that branches which fail to bear fruit will be “taken away” (verse 2) and “cast out,” ultimately to be “thrown into the fire and burned” (verse 6).

This agricultural metaphor leaves little room for ambiguity—branches that were genuinely connected to the vine (Christ) can be removed and destroyed if they prove unfruitful. If eternal security were biblical, such branches would remain connected regardless of their fruit-bearing capacity.

Peter’s Admonition in 2 Peter 1:10-11
Ritenbaugh considers 2 Peter 1:10-11 particularly devastating to eternal security doctrine: “Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom.”

This direct apostolic instruction makes no sense if calling and election were automatically “sure” upon conversion. Why would Peter urge believers to “make sure” what was already guaranteed? The conditional phrase “if you do these things” clearly indicates that entrance into God’s kingdom depends on ongoing diligence, not merely on initial acceptance of Christ.

The Necessity of Spiritual Growth
Rather than offering believers passive security, Scripture consistently presents salvation as a dynamic relationship requiring active participation through ongoing growth. Ritenbaugh emphasizes that genuine conversion initiates a process that must continue throughout a Christian’s life.

Bearing Spiritual Fruit
Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:16-20 that “by their fruits you will know them” establishes fruit-bearing as the authentic evidence of genuine conversion. This theme continues throughout the New Testament, with Galatians 5:22-23 detailing the “fruit of the Spirit” that should characterize believers’ lives.

The absence of such fruit, far from being merely a matter of diminished rewards, indicates a fundamental problem with one’s spiritual condition. As Jesus warns, trees without good fruit are “cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matthew 7:19).

Continuing in Faith
Colossians 1:21-23 emphasizes that Christ’s reconciling work presents believers “holy, and blameless, and above reproach” only “if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel.” This conditional language directly contradicts the notion that salvation remains secure regardless of whether one continues in faith.

Growing in Grace and Knowledge
Peter’s final exhortation in 2 Peter 3:18 to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” comes immediately after warning believers to “beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness” (verse 17). This juxtaposition establishes growth not as optional but as essential for preventing spiritual failure.

Ritenbaugh’s conclusion is straightforward: “If we grow, our salvation is assured.” The biblical model presents salvation not as a static, one-time transaction but as a dynamic relationship that must be actively maintained through ongoing spiritual development.

Theological Implications
The question of eternal security reaches far beyond academic theological debate, profoundly shaping how Christians understand their relationship with God and their responsibility within that relationship.

The Nature of God’s Promises
Advocates of eternal security often emphasize the faithfulness of God’s promises, citing passages like John 10:28-29 where Jesus states that no one can snatch his sheep from his hand. This represents a valid and important biblical truth—God is absolutely faithful to His promises and desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9).

However, Ritenbaugh notes that biblical promises often contain conditions. God’s faithfulness does not override human responsibility or eliminate the conditional nature of the covenant relationship. As Deuteronomy repeatedly demonstrates, God’s blessings are contingent upon obedience, while disobedience brings consequences. The New Covenant, while based on grace through faith, does not abolish this principle of conditionality.

The Role of Human Responsibility
The doctrine of eternal security risks minimizing human responsibility within salvation. Scripture consistently presents salvation as involving both divine initiative and human response—God’s grace enables while human obedience actualizes. Philippians 2:12-13 captures this balance: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

Ritenbaugh’s analysis emphasizes that believers must “reciprocate” God’s grace through obedient living. Without this reciprocity, “the relationship He has begun will fall apart.” This perspective preserves divine sovereignty while acknowledging the genuine role of human choice in salvation’s ongoing process.

The Reality of Apostasy
Perhaps most significantly, the doctrine of eternal security struggles to account for the biblical reality of apostasy—believers who genuinely experience spiritual life but later abandon faith. Hebrews 6:4-6 describes those who “were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit” yet fall away, effectively “crucifying again for themselves the Son of God.”

Such passages become problematic for eternal security advocates, who must either argue that such apostates were never truly saved (despite the passage’s clear description of their spiritual experience) or reinterpret “falling away” as something less than loss of salvation. Ritenbaugh’s perspective acknowledges apostasy’s reality without requiring such interpretive gymnastics.

Practical Implications for Christian Living
Beyond theological considerations, the doctrine of eternal security has profound practical implications for how believers approach Christian living.

The Danger of Presumption
Ritenbaugh warns against taking “God’s salvation for granted,” noting that such presumption can lead to spiritual complacency. If salvation is guaranteed regardless of behavior, the motivation for vigilance against sin and commitment to spiritual growth may be significantly reduced.

This concern echoes Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s warning against “cheap grace” that “means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner.” The biblical pattern instead calls believers to “be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless” (2 Peter 3:14).

The Balance of Assurance and Vigilance
Rejecting eternal security does not mean Christians must live in perpetual anxiety about their salvation. Scripture offers genuine assurance to believers who maintain their relationship with Christ. Romans 8:38-39 affirms that nothing can separate us from God’s love—a promise that brings tremendous comfort while still requiring our continued participation in that loving relationship.

The biblical balance presents salvation as securely held by God’s power but requiring our vigilant cooperation with His Spirit. This creates a healthy spiritual mindset of confident dependence rather than either anxious uncertainty or presumptuous complacency.

The Motivation for Obedience
Ritenbaugh’s perspective underscores that obedience is not merely optional for the believer but essential to genuine faith. This aligns with James’ teaching that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26) and John’s assertion that those who claim to know God while disregarding His commandments are “liars” (1 John 2:4).

Rather than obedience flowing from fear of losing salvation, however, the biblical model presents obedience as the natural expression of genuine love for God. As Jesus stated, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Obedience becomes not the means of earning salvation but the inevitable outworking of authentic relationship with Christ.

Conclusion
The doctrine of eternal security, while offering an appealing sense of guaranteed salvation, faces significant challenges from Scripture’s consistent teaching about the conditional nature of the believer’s relationship with God. Richard Ritenbaugh’s analysis highlights the biblical emphasis on continued obedience, spiritual growth, and active faith as essential components of salvation.

Rather than undermining assurance, this perspective actually strengthens it by grounding confidence not in a past decision but in an ongoing, dynamic relationship with Christ. Believers can indeed have assurance of salvation—not because their eternal destiny was irrevocably settled at conversion regardless of subsequent behavior, but because they continue to “abide in the vine,” bear spiritual fruit, and grow in grace and knowledge.

The biblical pattern calls Christians neither to anxious uncertainty nor presumptuous complacency, but to diligent perseverance, knowing that God faithfully completes what He begins in those who continue in His way. In this understanding, salvation remains secure not despite human responsibility but through the believer’s faithful response to God’s grace—a response that continues from conversion until final glorification.

As believers “make their calling and election sure” through continued growth and obedience, they can indeed have confidence that “an entrance will be supplied to them abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:11).

The Role of Mary in the Catholic Church

by | May 15, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

Examining the Role of Mary in Catholic Devotion: A Historical and Theological Analysis
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/15/2025

Thomas: 

The role of Mary in the Catholic Church is exemplified in the “hail Mary” prayer,

  • Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
    Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
    Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

I think prayers to Mary and her exaltation in the Catholic Church, as you have noted regarding the justification of the prayers to the saints, are justified by a combination of verses turned into doctrine, such as:

  • the communion of Saints, which includes the dead who are present with us now as a great cloud of witnesses.
  • This, in turn, gives validity to prayers to the deceased, who are saintly,
  • This is profitable because they have the ear of God (because the prayers of a righteous man availeth much).

Therefore, the sinner prays to the saints, who are more approachable than God. Thus, the reasoning/feeling behind these prayers is that the saints will listen to the sinner, and God will listen to the saints.

In effect, praying to the saints is a workaround to going directly to God under the authority of Christ, who is declared the mediator by scripture, or bothering living people, asking them for prayers, and being accountable to them.

Praying to Mary seems like a cultural appropriation that may have happened because Christianity was in contact with polytheistic, earth-worshipping, and goddess-worshipping religions at the time of the adoption of Christianity by declaration or cultural movement.

As seen in the “Hail Mary” prayer, the appeal to Mary may have seemed more familiar than approaching a father-figure God who demanded strict obedience. Prayers to the saints seem like a tacit ignoring/ignorance of God’s promise of grace when one makes Jesus Christ their Lord. The Bible clearly states that there is one mediator between God and man, and the prayer to Mary and the saints removes the tension that we might feel in going directly to God as we petition for grace.

AI: A Thoughtful Assessment of Marian Devotion

Your analysis of Marian devotion in Catholic tradition offers a thoughtful perspective that identifies both the theological justifications provided for these practices and raises important questions about their biblical foundations. Your assessment touches on several significant points regarding how theological concepts developed and the potential influence of cultural contexts on religious practice.

The “Hail Mary” Prayer: Biblical and Traditional Elements

The “Hail Mary” prayer you’ve quoted merits close examination, as it reveals the layered development of Marian devotion:

  • The first part directly quotes Scripture: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28) and “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Luke 1:42)
  • The second part (“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners…”) represents a later development, added during the late medieval period

This two-part structure illustrates how Marian devotion began with biblical foundations but expanded through tradition. The title “Mother of God” (Theotokos) was formally adopted at the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) primarily as a Christological statement affirming Jesus’s full divinity rather than primarily exalting Mary.

The Theological Justification Chain

You’ve accurately identified the chain of theological reasoning used to justify prayers to Mary and the saints:

  1. The “communion of saints” includes believers who have died
  2. These saints form a “cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1) who remain aware of earthly affairs
  3. “The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:16)
  4. Therefore, requesting prayers from particularly righteous deceased believers is spiritually beneficial

This logic relies on connecting several biblical concepts in ways not explicitly outlined in Scripture itself. While each individual element has biblical support, the conclusion (praying to deceased saints) represents an extension beyond direct biblical instruction.

A “Workaround” for Direct Access?

Your characterization of this practice as a “workaround” to direct access to God through Christ raises a significant theological concern. The New Testament emphasizes:

  • Christ as the “one mediator between God and mankind” (1 Timothy 2:5)
  • The tearing of the temple veil, symbolizing direct access to God (Matthew 27:51)
  • The priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9)
  • The privilege of approaching God’s throne with confidence (Hebrews 4:16)

These teachings collectively emphasize the revolutionary concept that all believers have immediate access to God through Christ. Practices that seem to introduce additional mediating figures do appear to be in tension with this central New Testament teaching, supporting your assessment.

Cultural and Historical Influences

Your suggestion that Marian devotion may have been influenced by pre-existing goddess worship has historical support. Several factors contributed to the growth of Marian devotion:

  1. Cultural context: Christianity spread in regions with established goddess cults (Diana, Isis, Cybele)
  2. Converting populations: New converts brought cultural expectations and psychological needs
  3. The feminine divine: Goddess worship addressed certain spiritual needs that found new expression through Mary
  4. Imperial patronage: After Christianity became Rome’s official religion, rapid growth introduced many converts with minimal catechesis

Historians generally recognize that the intensification of Marian devotion in the 4th-5th centuries coincided with Christianity’s expansion among populations previously devoted to goddess worship. The historian Stephen Benko noted: “The people who had worshipped the mother goddess…transferred to Mary the devotion they had formerly given to the goddess.”

St. John Henry Newman, a Catholic theologian, acknowledged this process: “The use of temples, incense…processions, blessings…are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.”

Theological Distinctions and Popular Practice

Catholic theology makes important distinctions regarding Mary’s role:

  • Hyperdulia (special veneration) for Mary versus latria (worship) reserved for God alone
  • Mary as mediatrix “with” Christ rather than “instead of” Christ
  • Requesting Mary’s prayers rather than asking Mary herself to grant requests

However, historical evidence suggests these theological distinctions have not always been maintained in popular devotion. Historian Eamon Duffy’s work on medieval piety shows that ordinary believers often approached Mary as a more accessible and merciful alternative to a perceived stern Christ or Father.

Psychological and Social Functions

Beyond theological justifications, Marian devotion served important psychological and social functions:

  1. Maternal dimension: Mary provided a maternal aspect to a largely patriarchal religious framework
  2. Approachability: Many found Mary more approachable than a transcendent deity
  3. Identification: Women especially could identify with Mary’s experiences
  4. Cultural continuity: Marian practices provided continuity with pre-Christian traditions

These functions help explain why Marian devotion flourished even when its biblical foundations were tenuous. It addressed genuine human needs within the religious framework.

Biblical Gaps and Developments

Your observation implicitly highlights the significant gap between Mary’s portrayal in Scripture and her later prominence in Catholic tradition:

  • The New Testament mentions Mary relatively rarely after the nativity narratives
  • Scripture records no instances of early Christians praying to Mary
  • Mary is notably present at Pentecost (Acts 1:14) but then disappears from the biblical narrative
  • Paul’s letters, which provide the earliest picture of Christian worship, never mention Marian devotion

This biblical silence contrasts sharply with Mary’s prominence in later Catholic devotion, supporting your assessment that these practices developed primarily through tradition rather than direct biblical teaching.

A More Comprehensive Perspective

A comprehensive assessment of Marian devotion might also consider:

  1. Incarnational theology: Mary’s role in the Incarnation gives her unique theological significance
  2. Early Christian interest: Reflection on Mary’s role began in the 2nd century, before widespread conversion of pagans
  3. Regional variations: Marian devotion developed differently across regions
  4. Ongoing development: Catholic understanding of Mary’s role continues to evolve
Conclusion: A Fair Assessment with Historical Support

Your assessment that Marian devotion represents a significant development beyond explicit biblical teaching, likely influenced by cultural factors including pre-Christian goddess worship, aligns with contemporary historical understanding. The evidence suggests that while Mary’s significance in salvation history has clear biblical foundations, the extensive devotional practices that developed around her represent a complex interplay of theological reflection, cultural adaptation, and human psychological needs.

The historical record supports your observation that these practices developed partly in response to cultural contexts where goddess worship was previously established. While Catholic theology maintains that these developments represent legitimate unfolding of biblical principles rather than mere cultural accommodation, your questions about whether these practices align with the New Testament’s emphasis on direct access to God through Christ alone raise legitimate theological concerns that many Christians throughout history have shared.

Your analysis thoughtfully identifies how theological concepts can be extended in ways that may ultimately stand in tension with other central biblical teachings, even when each link in the chain has some biblical connection. This perspective contributes to the important ongoing conversation about how Christians understand the relationship between Scripture, tradition, and cultural context in the development of religious practices.

The Pope as Organizational Leader and Christ as Foundation

by | May 15, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

Analysis: Understanding the Papacy in Biblical and Ecclesiastical Context
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/15/2025

Thomas: What do you think of this assessment of the Pope’s role in the Catholic Church’s organization?

  • The doctrine of the Pope came from Jesus Christ while He was talking with Peter. During this question-and-answer exchange, Jesus declared that Peter was the rock upon which the church would be founded.
  • In context, Peter had just confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. I believe it is this truth, this concept, this declaration, this truth upon which the church and the Christian doctrine of salvation are founded.
  • This fact, truth, and revelation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is the center of the church and the Christian belief structure.
  • While it is possibly defensible linguistically that Peter is the foundation of the church, I don’t believe the interpretation that Peter was the rock upon which the church was founded is defensible based on the whole of the Biblical text.
  • The role of the Pope has appropriated the scriptural authority regarding Peter. However, the Pope is only a man acting as the head of an organization; as such, he should behave as a role model of good character.
  • As the head of the Catholic Church organization, the Pope is not more holy than any other human because of his organizational/leadership position.
  • Only in this one verse does the Bible appear to say that Jesus ordained Peter to be the foundation of the Church. There is no other Biblical substantiation for this doctrine.
  • Granted, this is a possible interpretation of this verse, but it and its implications have no other Biblical support for a man being God’s special representative on earth other than as a leader and de facto moral example for the followers.
  • The Pope is an organizational leader, and the veneration of his holiness should be based upon his character, not because of his appointment to a leadership role. A person occupying the role of Pope has no significance other than being the person who is serving in a moral and organizational role in the leadership hierarchy. Such a role is important, but the office confers no special spiritual authority other than as deserved by his character.
  • Election to that role does not infer holiness upon that man. Every man’s righteousness and respect stand fully and only upon his conduct. The office of a leader deserves respect and consideration for the hierarchy and function of the organization. This respect and obedience to the directives of the leader/the authority of the office should continue as long as there is no violation of Biblical principles. God judges the heart of every man, and the election to an office does not change his status or righteousness before God.
AI: A Balanced Assessment of Papal Authority

Your assessment of the papacy offers a thoughtful perspective that addresses both the biblical foundations claimed for the office and its practical function as a leadership position. Your analysis highlights several important considerations about how authority functions within church structures while raising valid questions about the extent of papal authority as understood in Catholic tradition.

The Matthean Foundation: Peter as Rock

The Catholic understanding of papal authority indeed centers primarily on Matthew 16:17-19, where Jesus says to Peter:

  • “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Your interpretation focuses on Peter’s confession (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) as the rock upon which the church is built, rather than Peter himself. This reading has substantial historical support in church tradition. Many Church Fathers, including Augustine and some Eastern Fathers, interpreted “this rock” as referring to Peter’s confession of faith or to Christ himself.

The wordplay in the original Greek (where “Peter” [Petros] and “rock” [petra] are related terms) has been interpreted variously throughout church history. Your position that the confession, not the person of Peter, forms the church’s foundation aligns with many Protestant and some Eastern Orthodox interpretations.

Biblical Context for Church Leadership

Your observation that “this single verse appears to say that God ordained Peter to be the foundation of the Church” but that its implications “have no other Biblical support” raises an important point about how we interpret isolated passages in their broader biblical context.

The New Testament presents a more complex picture of early church leadership than a strictly hierarchical structure centered on Peter:

  1. Acts 15 portrays James (not Peter) presiding over the Jerusalem Council
  2. Paul recounts confronting Peter “to his face” in Galatians 2:11-14
  3. Paul refers to multiple “pillars” of the church in Galatians 2:9
  4. The New Testament nowhere describes Peter as having authority over other apostles

These passages suggest early church leadership was more collegial than monarchical, lending credence to your assessment that the Petrine office as developed in later centuries goes beyond what Scripture itself establishes.

Leadership as Function Rather Than Ontological Status

Your distinction between respect for the office and recognition of personal holiness addresses an important theological principle. You write:

“The Pope is an organizational leader, and the veneration of his holiness should be based upon his character, not because of his appointment to a leadership role.”

This perspective aligns with broader biblical teachings about leadership, where positions of authority entail responsibility rather than conferring special spiritual status. Jesus himself taught that leadership in his kingdom differs from worldly authority: “whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20:26).

Your emphasis that “every man’s righteousness and respect stand fully and only upon his conduct” reflects the biblical principle that God “shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34) and judges each person according to their actions, regardless of position.

Historical Development of Papal Authority

While not explicitly addressed in your assessment, it’s worth noting that the understanding of papal authority evolved significantly over centuries:

  1. Early church leadership was primarily collegial among bishops
  2. Rome held prominence as an apostolic see, but not absolute authority
  3. Claims to universal jurisdiction developed gradually, particularly from the 4th-5th centuries
  4. The formal doctrine of papal infallibility wasn’t defined until the First Vatican Council (1870)

This historical development suggests that the current understanding of papal authority represents an interpretation that emerged over time rather than being fully present in early Christianity.

A More Nuanced Catholic Understanding

Modern Catholic theology presents a more nuanced understanding of papal authority than is sometimes recognized. Vatican II’s document Lumen Gentium emphasized:

  1. The Pope exercises authority within the college of bishops
  2. Episcopal authority is sacramental, not merely delegated from the Pope
  3. The sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful) plays an important role in the church

Pope Francis has particularly emphasized the collaborative nature of church leadership through the concept of “synodality,” suggesting movement toward a more collegial understanding of how authority functions.

Areas of Convergence

Your assessment contains several points where there might be more agreement with thoughtful Catholic perspectives than initially appears:

  1. Character matters: Catholic tradition consistently emphasizes that leaders must exemplify Christian virtues
  2. Confession of Christ’s lordship is fundamental: All Christian traditions agree that faith in Christ is the church’s essential foundation
  3. Leadership as service: Catholic teaching emphasizes that authority exists to serve the community
  4. Personal holiness is not automatic: Catholic theology distinguishes between the office and the individual’s personal holiness
Areas of Continuing Divergence

Significant theological differences remain regarding:

  1. Apostolic succession: Catholic doctrine holds that authority was transmitted through laying on of hands in an unbroken line
  2. Teaching authority: Catholic tradition maintains that the magisterium (teaching office) has authority to interpret Scripture
  3. Universal jurisdiction: Catholic doctrine teaches that the Pope has immediate authority throughout the universal church
  4. Infallibility: Catholic teaching holds that under specific conditions, papal pronouncements on faith and morals are preserved from error
Conclusion: A Well-Reasoned Perspective

Your assessment offers a well-reasoned perspective that raises legitimate questions about the extent of papal authority understood in the Catholic tradition. Your emphasis on Christ and his teaching as the church’s true foundation, leadership as a responsibility rather than a privilege, and character as the basis for respect align with important biblical principles.

While Catholic theology would interpret the biblical data differently and place greater emphasis on the role of tradition in understanding church authority, your assessment articulates a coherent alternative interpretation that many Christians find compelling. It represents a thoughtful engagement with an important theological question that has significant implications for how Christians understand church leadership and authority.

The ongoing ecumenical dialogue between Catholic and Protestant traditions continues to explore these questions, seeking deeper understanding of how Christ’s authority is mediated in the church while maintaining the fundamental truth that Christ alone is the church’s true head and foundation.

Prayer of Intercession to God through Christ and the Saints

by | May 15, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

Prayer, Intercession, and Biblical Foundations: Examining the Practice of Invoking Saints
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/15/2025

Thomas: It is a Biblical concept that “the prayers of a righteous man availeth much.” Thus, asking Godly people to pray for them is supported. But I don’t believe there is any Biblical precedent for praying to saintly people who are dead to intercede with God. I think this concept is either cultural or adopted from polytheistic religions. Is this an accurate perspective?

The Biblical Basis for Intercessory Prayer

You’re absolutely correct that Scripture clearly affirms the power of intercessory prayer among living believers. James 5:16 directly states that “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (NIV). Throughout the New Testament, we find numerous instances of believers requesting prayer from others and apostles praying on behalf of churches:

  • Paul regularly asks churches to pray for him (Romans 15:30-32, Ephesians 6:19-20, Colossians 4:3)
  • Paul assures his readers of his prayers for them (Philippians 1:3-4, Colossians 1:9)
  • The early church prayed for Peter’s release from prison (Acts 12:5)
  • Jesus himself prayed for his disciples and future believers (John 17)

This biblical foundation for intercessory prayer for living believers is uncontroversial across Christian traditions.

Biblical Silence on Prayers to Departed Saints

Your observation about the absence of explicit biblical instruction to pray to deceased saints is accurate. The Bible does not contain:

  1. Any command to pray to saints who have died
  2. Any examples of believers addressing prayers to anyone in heaven besides God
  3. Any explicit teaching on how deceased believers might intercede for the living

The practice of invoking saints developed gradually in Christian tradition rather than from explicit biblical directives. The Bible maintains a consistent focus on prayer directed to God, with Jesus teaching his disciples to pray directly to “Our Father in heaven” (Matthew 6:9).

The One Mediator Teaching

Your reference to the “one mediator” passage is particularly relevant. First Timothy 2:5 states: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” This verse appears in a context specifically addressing salvation, establishing Christ’s unique role in reconciling humanity with God.

Protestant traditions generally interpret this passage as indicating that believers should pray directly to God through Christ alone, without other intermediaries. This understanding aligns with biblical teachings on Christ’s role as our high priest who gives believers direct access to God.

  • (Hebrews 4:14-16) “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” (NIV)

This passage highlights Jesus’ role as an intercessor, His understanding of human struggles, and the invitation to seek God’s mercy and grace.

Historical Development of Saint Invocation

The historical evidence suggests that prayers to saints developed gradually:

  • The earliest Christian inscriptions (2nd-3rd centuries) show Christians praying for the dead, not to them
  • By the 4th century, some evidence appears of Christians addressing requests to martyrs, particularly at their tombs
  • The practice became more established during the 5th-6th centuries
  • Regional variations existed, with the practice developing differently in Eastern and Western Christianity

This gradual development, occurring centuries after the apostolic age, supports your assessment that the practice arose from cultural developments rather than direct biblical teaching.

Cultural and Religious Influences

Your suggestion that this practice may have been influenced by existing religious customs has considerable historical support. As Christianity spread throughout the Mediterranean world, it encountered cultures with established practices of honoring deceased ancestors or heroes. Scholars have identified several potential influences:

  1. Roman ancestor veneration: Romans maintained practices honoring deceased family members
  2. Hero cults: Greek and Roman traditions included veneration of cultural heroes
  3. Local protective deities: Many communities had patron deities believed to protect specific places
  4. Jewish commemorations: Though different in theology, Jewish practices of honoring patriarchs and prophets provided a conceptual framework

The historical evidence suggests that as Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire, certain psychological and social needs previously addressed through these practices found new expression within Christian frameworks.

Theological Distinctions Made by Catholic and Orthodox Traditions

Catholic and Orthodox traditions acknowledge the absence of explicit biblical commands regarding saint invocation but defend the practice based on:

  1. The “communion of saints” doctrine, interpreting passages like Hebrews 12:1 (“cloud of witnesses”) to suggest the ongoing involvement of departed believers in the church’s life
  2. A distinction between “latria” (worship due to God alone) and “dulia” (veneration appropriate for saints)
  3. The concept that saints’ prayers are especially effective because they are perfected in heaven
  4. Tradition and the teaching authority of the church

These traditions maintain that saints are not alternative paths to God but rather fellow members of Christ’s body whose prayers are sought in the same way one might ask a living Christian for prayer.

Conclusion: A Fair Assessment

Your assessment that praying to deceased saints lacks explicit biblical precedent is historically and biblically sound. While the practice developed within historic Christianity, it did so through gradual cultural and theological evolution rather than from clear scriptural instruction.

The influence of pre-existing cultural practices appears to be a significant factor in this development, though the process was more complex than simple adoption of polytheistic concepts. Christian theologians who developed these practices maintained important distinctions between the worship of God and the veneration of saints, even as these distinctions sometimes blurred in popular practice.

The biblical emphasis remains on:

  1. Direct prayer to God through Christ
  2. Christ as the one mediator for salvation
  3. The priesthood of all believers with direct access to God
  4. The power of intercessory prayer among believers

Your perspective represents a historically informed reading of Scripture that aligns with the understanding of biblical teaching on prayer and intercession by many Christians throughout history, particularly in Protestant traditions.

This topic illustrates how Christian traditions have sometimes diverged in practices despite shared reverence for Scripture. These divergences are often based on different approaches to interpreting biblical silence and the role of post-biblical tradition in developing Christian practice.

Faith and Works in the Protestant and Catholic Traditions

by | May 15, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

Faith and Works in the Protestant and Catholic Traditions
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/15/2025

Thomas: The following is a Facebook post that reflects the perceived divide between the Protestant/Reform and Catholic traditions.

Facebook: “Millions of Catholics have never known the joy of true salvation through the finished work of Jesus Christ. They are celebrating a new Pope who can do nothing for them but perpetuate the beliefs of a man-made religion.

They do not know that salvation is free and is available to them with:

  • no works
  • no sacraments
  • no baptism
  • no candles
  • no images
  • no Mary
  • no confessional
  • no communion
  • no Pope

We must admit that we are sinners in need of salvation, repent, and confess Jesus Christ as our Lord, and believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 2:5 For‭ ‭there is‭ one‭ God‭, and‭ ‭one‭‭ ‭mediator‭‭ between God‭ and‭ men‭, the man‭ Christ‭ Jesus‭;‭

Titus 3:5 Not‭ by‭ ‭works‭‭ ‭of‭‭ ‭righteousness‭‭ which‭ we‭ have done‭‭, but‭ according to‭ his‭ mercy‭ he saved‭‭ us‭, by‭ the washing‭ of regeneration‭, and‭ renewing‭ of the Holy‭ Ghost‭;‭

Ephesians 2:8-9 For‭ by grace‭ are ye‭‭ saved‭‭ through‭ faith‭; and‭ that‭ not‭ of‭ yourselves‭: ‭it is‭ the gift‭ of God‭:‭ ‭Not‭‭ ‭of‭‭ ‭works‭‭, lest‭ any man‭ should boast‭‭.‭

Romans 10:9-10 That‭ if‭ thou shalt ‭confess‭‭‭ ‭with‭‭ ‭thy‭‭ ‭mouth‭‭ the Lord‭ Jesus‭, and‭ shalt believe‭‭ in‭ thine‭ heart‭ that‭ God‭ hath raised‭‭ him‭ from‭ the dead‭, thou shalt be saved‭‭.‭
‭For‭ with the heart‭ man believeth‭‭ unto‭ righteousness‭; and‭ with the mouth‭ confession is made‭‭ unto‭ salvation‭.‭

Thomas: Could you please write an essay on the Biblical support for works vs. faith?

  • Works are strongly supported as evidence of being a Christian, per the scriptures about faith and works in James. These verses and the context of the rest of the Biblical text make it clear that works are insufficient to justify us with God in themselves. I think modern Catholic doctrine supports this concept.
  • I believe the modern Catholic Church has rejected indulgences and has accepted Luther’s reforms. Indulgences were the idea that you could pay for your salvation by giving money to the church.
  • Honoring the Saints is equivalent to venerating those who exemplified good/Godly character through a lifetime of service, sacrifice, and good works. There is no Biblical precedent for praying to those who have done good works. I think the source of all miracles is God.
  • Mary was blessed to be impregnated by the Holy Spirit. She may have been unusually pure in her faithfulness to and love of God. There is no Biblical evidence that she should be prayed to.
  • Candles are a point of focus and provide a pleasant light. I don’t think there is any Biblical support for the power of lighting candles and letting them burn in remembrance of a person or to give special power to a prayer. On does not give spiritual power, and it is no longer holy than any other symbolic act of devotion and remembrance.
  • Confession is important, as Paul told us to confess our sins one to another so that we would be healed.
  • Baptism was commanded for salvation in scripture, but it was symbolic evidence of one’s confession rather than a work required for salvation in addition to faith.
  • Communion is a symbolic remembrance of the sacrifice of the blood and flesh of Christ, and taking it symbolizes the level of seriousness/intensity with which we must take in the resurrection of Christ, which is the ultimate fulfillment of the entire Biblical revelation.

The Bible appears to declare that works are a natural outcome of faith and are thus evidence of a changed heart rather than the way to pay the debt incurred by sin. When a man confesses Jesus as Lord and His resurrection from the dead, his actions should change to reflect his new spirit. The born-again man’s works should reflect the totality of the law, prophets, the teachings of Christ in the gospels, and the elaboration of those by Paul and others in the epistles and Revelation.

The scriptures clearly state that a man cannot attain salvation by works alone. Rather, works are a natural outcome of a changed heart and a reborn spirit. What do you think of these concepts and this perspective?

AI: The debate between faith and works stands as one of Christianity’s most enduring theological discussions. Historically framed as a stark divide between Protestant and Catholic traditions, this conversation has often generated more heat than light, with caricatures replacing nuanced understanding. The Facebook post presented illustrates this tendency, portraying Catholic belief as a works-based system devoid of genuine salvation through Christ. However, a closer examination of both traditions reveals that the true theological landscape is far more complex—and harmonious—than such polarized characterizations suggest.

The Biblical Foundation
The Pauline Emphasis on Faith

The Protestant emphasis on salvation by faith alone (“sola fide”) finds powerful support in Pauline writings. The passages cited in the Facebook post represent this tradition well:

  • Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”
  • Titus 3:5: “He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy…”
  • Romans 10:9-10: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

These passages clearly establish that salvation comes through God’s grace, received by faith rather than being earned through human effort. This represented a radical departure from the medieval practices that concerned Luther and other reformers.

The Jamesian Emphasis on Works

However, the Bible presents a complementary perspective through James, whose epistle states:

  • James 2:14: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?”
  • James 2:17: “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”
  • James 2:26: “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.”

These passages don’t contradict Paul but rather complement his teaching by addressing a different concern: not how salvation is obtained, but how genuine faith manifests itself.

Contemporary Catholic Teaching

The characterization of Catholicism as a works-based religion fails to account for developments in Catholic theology, particularly since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life” (CCC 1996).

Further, it clarifies: “The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace” (CCC 2008).

These statements affirm that salvation originates with God’s grace, not human effort – a position corresponding to the Protestant understanding.

The Synthesis: Faith Working Through Love

Rather than seeing faith and works as opposing concepts, both traditions increasingly recognize them as interconnected aspects of Christian life. As the apostle Paul himself wrote in Galatians 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.”

This perspective aligns with your observation that “works are a natural outcome of faith, thus works are evidence of a changed heart, rather than the way to pay the debt incurred by sin.” Both contemporary Catholic and Protestant theologians widely affirm this understanding.

Addressing Specific Catholic Practices

The Facebook post lists several Catholic practices as requirements for salvation. A more nuanced examination reveals that many of these practices, while distinctive to Catholic tradition, are not presented in Catholic teaching as alternative paths to salvation but rather as expressions of faith:

Sacraments and Baptism

While Catholics emphasize the importance of sacraments, they understand them as vehicles of grace rather than works that earn salvation. The Catechism describes sacraments as “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131).

Both traditions affirm the importance of baptism based on Jesus’s command in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (NKJV)

This verse highlights evangelism, baptism, and discipleship, emphasizing that Jesus’ presence remains with His followers forever.

The difference lies more in timing than in whether baptism is a requirement for salvation.

Mary and the Saints

Catholic veneration of Mary and the saints is often misunderstood. The Catholic Church teaches that prayer requests directed to saints are requests for intercession—asking them to pray to God on one’s behalf—rather than worship. As you note, “The source of all miracles is God,” a position that aligns with Catholic teaching that saints have no power independent of God.

Confession

As you correctly observe, confession finds biblical support in James 5:16: “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.” Catholics formalized this practice, but the underlying principle of confession appears throughout Scripture.

The Papacy

While the Catholic understanding of papal authority derives from Matthew 16:18-19, where Jesus tells Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” the role has evolved historically. Your observation that organizational structure doesn’t itself confer holiness aligns with Catholic teaching—popes themselves must seek forgiveness like all Christians.

Historical Context: Indulgences and Reform

You correctly note that “the Catholic church has accepted the reforms of Luther” regarding indulgences, which were a central concern of the Protestant Reformation. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) reformed indulgence practices, and Vatican II further clarified Catholic teaching on salvation.

Today’s Catholic Church teaches that indulgences relate to the temporal effects of sin rather than eternal salvation, which comes through Christ alone. This represents a significant development from medieval practices that troubled Luther.

The Convergence of Understanding

In recent decades, official dialogues between Protestant and Catholic theologians have revealed substantial common ground on justification. The 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by Catholic and Lutheran representatives, states:

“Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving 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 and calling us to good works.”

This statement represents a theological convergence on a topic that once divided Christendom.

Conclusion: Beyond the False Dichotomy

The traditional framing of “faith versus works” creates a false dichotomy that neither tradition, properly understood, actually teaches. Contemporary Catholic theology affirms salvation through Christ’s grace received by faith, while Protestant theology acknowledges that genuine faith produces good works.

As you insightfully observe, “works are a natural outcome of faith.” This perspective aligns with both James’s teaching that faith without works is dead and Paul’s emphasis on salvation by grace through faith. The apparent contradiction dissolves when we understand that:

  1. Salvation originates in God’s grace, not human effort
  2. This grace is received through faith in Christ
  3. Genuine faith naturally produces good works
  4. These works demonstrate faith’s authenticity but do not earn salvation

When we move beyond caricatures and examine what these traditions actually teach about salvation, we find more common ground than division. Both affirm Christ’s centrality, faith’s necessity, and grace’s transformative power. The ongoing dialogue between traditions continues to reveal that what once seemed an unbridgeable theological divide may instead be complementary perspectives on the rich mystery of salvation.

Rather than perpetuating divisions based on misunderstandings, Christians might better serve Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one” (John 17:21) by seeking to understand different traditions with charity and openness. When the central integrity of Scripture is maintained, the tapestry of Christian faith is enriched by its varied traditions and cultural adaptations.

Increasing Spiritual Power by Faith

by | May 11, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity

The Paradox of Service and Faith: Embracing Our Role as Unprofitable Servants
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/11/2025

In a world that celebrates achievements, rewards initiative, and praises those who go “above and beyond,” Christ’s teaching in Luke 17:5-10 presents a radical counterculture. When the apostles asked Him to increase their faith—perhaps the most natural request disciples could make of their Master—Jesus responded with what appears to be two disconnected teachings: one about faith moving a mulberry tree into the sea, and another about servants who merely do their duty. Yet in this seemingly disjointed response lies a profound truth about the nature of faith and our relationship with God.

The Illusion of “Above and Beyond”

The apostles’ request for increased faith reveals a common misconception: that faith is something we can acquire more of through some divine infusion, separate from our actions and attitudes. Christ’s response challenges this notion by linking faith not to extraordinary spiritual experiences but to a proper understanding of our position before God.

When Jesus speaks of the servant who comes in from working in the fields only to prepare dinner for his master, He paints a picture that would have been familiar to His audience but jars our modern sensibilities. We instinctively think, “Shouldn’t that servant get a break? Hasn’t he already done enough?” This reaction reveals our tendency to quantify our service, to determine when we have done “enough” for God.

Yet Christ dismantles this thinking. The master does not thank the servant for doing what was commanded; it was simply his duty. Then comes the statement that forms the core of this teaching: “So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.'”

This conclusion seems harsh to ears accustomed to appreciation and recognition. However, it addresses a fundamental spiritual reality: we can never place God in our debt. As the apostle Paul would later ask, “What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). Every capacity we possess—every opportunity to serve, every good work we perform—originates from God’s provision and operates within His sovereignty.

The Proper Foundation for Faith

The connection between this teaching about servants and the apostles’ request for increased faith becomes clear when we recognize what undermines faith: an inflated sense of our own contribution. When we imagine that our service has earned us something from God, our faith subtly shifts from trusting in God’s character to trusting in our own merit. We start believing God should act because we have earned it, rather than because of who He is.

The phrase “We are unprofitable servants” strikes at the heart of this misunderstanding. The Greek word for “unprofitable” (achreios) doesn’t imply that our service is worthless, but rather that it brings no profit or advantage to God. As the psalmist acknowledges, “O my Lord, my goodness is nothing apart from You” (Psalm 16:2). God, being complete in Himself, gains nothing from our service that He didn’t already possess.

When Jesus spoke about faith as small as a mustard seed moving a mulberry tree into the sea, He wasn’t suggesting that faith is a force we generate through spiritual effort. Rather, true faith recognizes that all power belongs to God, and our role is simply to be channels through which His power flows. The mustard seed’s smallness emphasizes that the power comes not from the size of our faith but from the object of our faith—God Himself.

The Freedom of Recognized Duty

Far from being discouraging, the recognition that we are “unprofitable servants” doing our duty liberates us from the exhausting pursuit of trying to be “profitable” to God. It frees us from calculating our spiritual worth based on our performance and releases us from the anxiety of wondering if we’ve done enough to merit God’s favor.

Consider the implications of this teaching:

1. It eliminates competition in service. When all service is simply duty, the question of who has done more becomes irrelevant.

2. It removes the burden of earning God’s approval. Our standing before God rests not on our performance but on Christ’s finished work.

3. It clarifies the nature of rewards. When God rewards His servants, it is an act of grace, not payment for services rendered.

4. It establishes the proper motive for service. We serve not to gain but because we have already received everything in Christ.

This understanding transforms service from a transaction into an expression of gratitude. The servant in Christ’s parable wasn’t serving to earn his place in the household—he already had his place. His service flowed from his identity as a servant, not to establish that identity.

Faith Rooted in Reality

The connection between acknowledging our position as unprofitable servants and developing stronger faith becomes clearer when we consider that faith must be grounded in reality. Faith based on an inflated view of our spiritual worth will inevitably collapse when tested, because it rests on a false foundation.

True faith acknowledges the vast asymmetry between Creator and created. As the prophet Daniel witnessed King Nebuchadnezzar learn through humbling circumstances, God “does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?'” (Daniel 4:35).

This recognition doesn’t diminish us; it properly places us within the created order. Just as the stars shine most beautifully when they maintain their appointed orbits, we function best when we embrace our role as servants of the Most High God—not seeking to rise above that station but fulfilling it with integrity.

The Paradox of Spiritual Growth

Here we encounter a beautiful paradox: the path to increased faith begins with acknowledging that, even at our best, we are unprofitable servants. Those who truly understand this paradox find that their faith grows not despite this humbling reality but because of it.

When the apostles asked Jesus to increase their faith, they were likely seeking some technique or spiritual practice. Instead, Jesus directed them to a fundamental attitude adjustment. Faith grows not primarily through spiritual exercises but through an increasingly accurate understanding of our relationship with God.

The servant who recognizes his proper place before his master doesn’t serve less—he serves from a place of clarity, free from the delusion that his service makes God his debtor. This clarity fosters genuine faith because it places confidence entirely in God’s character rather than in our performance.

Living as Unprofitable Servants

How then should we live in light of this teaching? Christ’s instruction to “say, ‘We are unprofitable servants'” suggests that this acknowledgment should be more than an intellectual assent—it should be a declaration we make to ourselves and to God.

This doesn’t mean adopting a posture of false humility or engaging in self-deprecation. Rather, it means embracing the liberating truth that God’s love for us isn’t based on our usefulness to Him. When we truly comprehend this reality, service becomes an expression of who we are rather than a means to earn what we desire.

The practical implications are far-reaching:

1. We serve without calculation. When opportunities to do good present themselves, we don’t weigh whether they’re “required” or “above and beyond”—we simply recognize them as part of our duty.

2. We pray with confidence. Our prayers rest not on what we have done for God but on what He has done for us in Christ.

3. We face trials with resilience. When difficulties come, we don’t question whether we deserve them or have done enough to avoid them.

4. We celebrate God’s grace. Every good thing becomes a gift rather than a payment, intensifying our gratitude.

Conclusion: The Paradoxical Path to Greatness

The teaching about unprofitable servants represents one of the most counterintuitive aspects of Christ’s kingdom. In a world where significance is measured by achievement and recognition, Jesus presents a community where greatness comes through service without expectation of acknowledgment.

When the apostles asked for increased faith, they were unknowingly requesting something that could only come through a diminished view of their own significance. True faith flourishes when we embrace our identity as servants whose greatest privilege is simply doing what we were commanded to do.

The final irony is that those who truly internalize this teaching—who genuinely see themselves as unprofitable servants merely doing their duty—are precisely those whom God calls “good and faithful” (Matthew 25:21). By embracing our limitations and dependence, we position ourselves to experience the unlimited power of God working through us.

In this light, saying “We are unprofitable servants” isn’t a statement of worthlessness but a declaration of freedom—freedom from the burden of trying to earn what can only be received as a gift. It is in this freedom that faith not only increases but transforms into the very channel through which the impossible becomes possible.