Lumen Fidei is here!!

Papa Francis' first encyclical is here!!! Lumen Fidei, the Light of Faith.

Unity between Denominations? Part II: What kind of unity are we called to?

Last time, I looked at the problem posed by denominationalism: namely, how the unity among Christians demanded by Christ is possible while also preserving the one true faith.

Today we'll consider a collection of the descriptions of the kind of unity we are meant to have, straight from Sacred Scripture.

• Rom. 12:4-5 "For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another."
• 1 Cor. 12 "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many... If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."
• Eph. 4:1-6 "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all."
• Phil. 1:27 "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel."

The Last Supper, where Christ prayed that we would be one. (Jn. 17)

• Phil. 2:2 "complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind."
• Col. 3:14-15 "And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful." 
• 1 Cor. 10:16-17 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."
• 1 Cor. 1:10 "I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment."
• Jn. 10:16 "So there shall be one flock, one shepherd."
• Jn. 17:20-26 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me."
• 1 Pet. 3:8 "Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind."

Again and again, we are called to be one, which seems to entail both visible (one body, one flock) and invisible (in the one Spirit) unity, through confession of one faith (without dissension!), unified celebration of sacraments (one Baptism, one bread), together bound up in love.

The picture painted here is, I think, very different to what we see today.

Part III: The Witness of the Early Church in the New Testament

Martyrdom, Consequentialism and Lies

James over at Reasonably Faithless has a post questioning the notion that fidelity to Christ should come before everything.

He begins by discussing the concept of martyrdom, and says that he understands how Christians might put Christ before their own life.

Then in what is essentially another version of the trolley thought experiment, he asks:

"But should it really come before everything?  How about…

You’re in church one Sunday morning, and a gunman enters the building.  He comes over to you, points his gun in the general direction of the other church goers, and says “Deny Christ or they all die“.  What should you do?

There’s a lot I could say about this, but I’d prefer to leave it open for people to mull over it.  I’d really like some Christians to have a good hard think about their response, without trying to avoid answering the question.  If you were in that situation, what would you do?  What should you do?  You only have two options: deny Christ and your fellow church members survive, or profess your loyalty and see them all killed.  So what would you do?  And why?"

My answers:

What should I do? Profess my loyalty.
What would I do? Always tough to say exactly what we would do, but I hope I would act as I said I should above.

Now for the why?

Bear with me, there's a lot going on here.

What I think the underlying assumptions are here:

1. Morally evil acts are justifiable in order to achieve "greater" goods
2. In particular, life (whether one's own or another's) trumps every other good
3. If we refuse to deny Christ and the gunman goes ahead and shoots our congregation, then we are responsible for their deaths

If one accepted all of these assumptions, I think one would end up saying that not only is it permissible to deny Christ in this situation, but that it is in fact what one ought to do.

I, however, reject all of these premises. Here's why:

1. Morally evil acts are justifiable in order to achieve "greater" goods

This whole thought experiment seems to assume that consequentialism is a good way to go about discerning what action one should take. Within this framework, there aren't really any "objectively" good or bad actions, they are all simply relative to one another, depending on the perceived goodness or badness of the outcomes that one predicts will come from their actions.

I think that such a position closes off the option of then saying that it would be definitely morally wrong to do anything, particularly in this case, that it would be wrong for Christians to refuse to deny Christ and thus send their fellow Christians to their deaths.

Goodness is not well-defined in the consequentialist view. Should we aim for maximum pleasure? But what kind of pleasure? How do we add up all the positives and negatives on ourselves and other people in a consistent way? It's just not possible.

I would propose rather that some acts are inherently evil, and these may never be justified, for if you commit one evil in "defence" of a good, you have just successfully undermined the very good you were seeking to uphold, by arbitrarily determining that another good was not worth upholding. When discerning the best course of action, one ought to seek to uphold all goods.

2. In particular, life has the ability to trump every other good

Or in other words, if there is something you can do to prevent someone else, or many people, dying, even if it would otherwise be wrong, you should do it.

The crux of the matter though, is whether fidelity is of utmost importance. James seemed to think that any Christian who refused to deny Christ would be someone to be wary of. But I think a Christian who did act this way would be inconsistent. Time and time again, Jesus tells us that we should be prepared to suffer greatly for Him. This faith is not a mere interior assent, but should also be lived. What does it say about one's faith if one does deny Christ? How faithful are you really? In the eyes of the Christian, Christ is God. He is Goodness, Truth and Beauty. He is Ultimate Awesome. To be in authentic relationship with Him is the end of Man. There is nothing that can trump this. To lie about the fact that God is everything to you is to tell the biggest lie you can possibly tell, denying Truth itself. And yet, paradoxically, if you are prepared to go that far, to what extent is it really a lie?

Furthermore, if it's understandable that someone might give up their own life for Christ, then what about the congregation? They should be attempting to convince you not to deny Christ, because they are prepared to die for Him. So they would be sort of vicariously dying for their faith.

Let's replace denying Christ with something else. What if one was asked to torture a child? What about your own child? Does that change things?

3. If we refuse to deny Christ and the gunman goes ahead and shoots our congregation, then we are responsible for their deaths

Actually, I think the gunman is the one responsible for their deaths. You cannot be coerced into doing wrong because someone else threatens to do evil.

There is also the fact that you can't ever really know for sure what is going to happen. He might not shoot them after all, and then kill you instead. Or he might kill all of you. Then, as a Christian, where would you be? Facing the One who died for you, right after you denied Him. And you might be counted among those who say "Lord, Lord!" and yet shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, for He will say, "I never knew you, depart from me, you evildoers," since, "whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven." (Mt. 10:33)

Finally, there is the question of the principle of double effect. This post is already too long, so I won't go into it in detail, but basically I think it's legitimate to say that while one may foresee the evil consequence of the deaths of the congregation for their own refusal to deny Christ, it is by no means their intended outcome, and this outcome is actually entirely on the gunman. Once you have given your response, he does with that what he wills, and if he chooses to shoot your fellow Christians, their deaths are on him.

[Having said all that, if one was to crumble under the pressure, I think culpability would be lessened, given the intensity of the situation. But that's another story.]

In conclusion:

To be a Christian and to place a finite good above Goodness itself, sinning in the process, is inconsistent, and is contrary to the very heart of what it means to be a Christian. While intuitively understandable, in that saving lives is a good thing, the fact of saving lives does not in itself justify every possible type of action, in particular, denying Christ. Finally, implying that the deaths would be the Christian's fault is not quite accurate, I think the guilt would more fairly be put on the head of the gunman.

Thanks for interesting thought experiment James! If I have misrepresented your views anywhere, I apologise in advance and will welcome correction.

THE last word on faith and works in Paul and James!

Well, maybe not quite. But almost!

Discuss the relationship between faith and works as found in the Epistles of Paul and James, compared to the rest of the New Testament

The relationship between faith and works has been highly contested between Catholics and Protestants since the Reformation, at which time Luther infamously inserted the word “alone” in Rom. 3:28.[1] The writers of the New Testament who deal most explicitly with this question are Sts Paul and James, and the problem lies in how to reconcile their apparently conflicting views. This paper will attempt to show that no such conflict actually exists; rather, their views are complementary, and only appear to contradict each other because they use the same terms in different ways. It will then be demonstrated that this resolution is in harmony with the rest of the New Testament writings.

Faith is a key part of Paul’s theology, verified in the sheer number of his references to it, compared to the rest of the New Testament.[2] He defines faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”.[3] When mentioned in connection with salvation or justification, faith seems to be used to mean a trusting acceptance of the promises God has made through His Son, Jesus Christ the Lord and Saviour; that is, the Gospel.[4] This faith, by necessity, includes assenting to a particular set of truths,[5] as revealed by God (the ultimate object of faith),[6] who can neither deceive not be deceived.[7] Christ’s identity and his teachings cannot be separated from each other, since he himself is the fullness of revelation, and “the truth”, so any truth he teaches cannot be divided from who he is.[8] Once one has taken the step of assenting to the one faith,[9] if one is consistent, the rest follows of itself.[10] Paul doesn’t limit faith to mere intellectual acquiescence, but rather, it includes the complete response of the believer’s entire person, and their submission in accord with the “obedience of faith”[11] to Christ.[12] Hence, it is this kind of faith that he means when he says that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”[13]

Understanding what Paul means by justification is essential for discerning his view of the connection between faith and works. It is his way of summarising God’s work of salvation,[14] and it describes “an effect worked in those who believe what God has done in Christ”,[15] and this effect has is referred to both as a past and a future experience.[16] The reality of what occurs in justification is so deep that Paul describes it from many different angles; those who have been justified are “heirs in hope of eternal life”,[17] made children of God[18] as they are given the spirit of sonship,[19] and they are at peace with God,[20] as a result of having been freed from sin.[21] While Paul is quite clear that faith is essential for salvation, he never claims that faith alone is sufficient.[22] He also makes clear that justification, which occurs by grace through faith,[23] is a gift freely bestowed on man by God,[24] and so cannot be earned,[25] nor boasted about because of one’s own efforts.[26] Thus, according to Paul, coming into and remaining in an intimate relationship with God occurs through the undeserved gift of justifying faith, and not through doing the works of the law.

Faith, as opposed to the law (a nuanced concept that Paul uses in multiple contexts),[27] as the means to justification is a major theme in Pauline literature; this is true most particularly in his letters to the Romans and Galatians. Using the word law in different contexts leads to some apparent contradictions in Paul’s theology. For example, in Rom. 2:13, he says that it is “the doers of the law who will be justified”, while on the other hand, in Rom. 2:28 he says “a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”[28] This may be clarified by considering what exactly is meant by “works of the law”. The second time[29] Paul uses the word “works” in Romans, it is within the phrase “works of the law”, and thereafter, he simply refers to “works”. This suggests that throughout he is using shorthand for “works of the law”, which are types of work distinct from “good works” (the type of works James refers to),[30] as works of the law consist in obeying specific commands of God for how Israel are to live.[31] Therefore, returning to the example above, the first statement should be understood in the broader context of what Paul is saying about the law, and man’s inability to obey it. Since it is impossible for anyone to do everything which the law commands, no one can be justified by doing what the law commands and thus there is no contradiction.[32] In regard to good works, Paul writes that believers are created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God has prepared beforehand.[33] He also says that they should live a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him, part of which entails bearing fruit in every good work.[34] They should purify themselves and be immersed in the Sacred Scriptures, so as to be ready and equipped to be useful to the Master, by doing good works.[35] He advises the Hebrews to “stir each other up to love and good works”,[36] after encouraging them to be faithful to the confession of their hope,[37] in accord with his fundamental definition of faith mentioned previously.[38]

For St Paul, faith and love are inseparable. He consistently ties together faith, hope, and charity, and also mentions them in pairs, to show how they collaborate in their unity.[39] Of particular note is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13, in his famous treatise on love: “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing”, and, “So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” Paul also talks about the importance of faith working itself out in charity,[40] which requires good works, and yet good works without love are nothing.[41]

When St James speaks of faith in his epistle, he uses it in a different sense to Paul.[42] This is made clear when he says “even the demons believe- and shudder”.[43] The demons are undoubtedly not justified; hence, the type of faith James is referring to is not the faith that justifies. Rather, by “faith”, he means a response to God consisting of mere intellectual assent, lacking in repentance, and not an outpouring of trust, humble gratitude and acceptance, and obedience, which works itself out in love, which is Paul’s understanding. Thus, when James says “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead”,[44] and “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”,[45] by speaking of the two concepts separately, he is spelling out the inner workings of faith more explicitly than Paul in Romans, who assumes this implicitly in his definition of faith. This is seen in the example that both writers give of Abraham’s faith- their different approaches colour their explanation of his justification, and complement each other, as “in Abraham, as in every Christian who acts consistently, faith and works totally imbue each other: works show forth faith, and faith inspires and performs works.”[46]

In the Synoptic Gospels, during his life, Jesus speaks of faith as trust in him, and belief that he is who he claims to be- the Son of God. After the ascension, those preaching the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ use faith to mean trust in the person of Jesus, and therefore in the work of his death and resurrection as having power to give the believer eternal life. Paul and James’ unification of faith and love seem to participate in a continuity of Jesus’ definition of faith, if we note these statements: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified”;[47] and “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”[48] There is a striking parallel between these ideas, and those expressed by Christ himself in Matthew 7: “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock”;[49] “Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”[50] In Acts Paul confirms the above discussion of his concept of faith as necessarily embracing obedience, as he says that those who repent should perform deeds worthy of their repentance.[51]

The Johannine literature focuses very much on the centrality of love. In John’s Gospel he records Jesus saying that the Father loves his disciples, because they have both believed in the Son and loved Him.[52] In his first epistle, John states that Christians have confidence before God if they keep His commandment[53]: that they believe in His Son Jesus Christ and love one another.[54] Loving one’s fellow believers follows naturally if one loves and believes in God.[55] John gives the central reason for the importance of love- God is love, and as such those who do not love do not know God, and therefore do not have faith in Him.[56] A summary of all that John considers to be tied together is found in Rev. 2:19: “I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance”. Indeed, the necessity of endurance in faith until death, manifested in constant love through works, according to which each man will be judged, is a theme that appears repeatedly in Revelation,[57] as well as in the synoptic Gospels,[58] and Paul’s letters.[59] James also weighs in on this idea: “Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him.”[60] John uses the specific word “works” in his Gospel in a different sense to his other writings, and to Paul and James, as it usually refers to the signs or miracles Jesus performed, to elicit this faith in his disciples.[61] This is reiterated in the reason he gives for writing the Gospel, which is to record the great works that Jesus did to reveal who he was, that the readers “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” that they may have life in his name.[62]

Turning our attention to the Catholic Epistles, Jude makes the point that the contents of the faith are unchanging, which, given the unchanging and absolute nature and person and teachings of Jesus, the Truth, makes sense.[63] He reminds that the endurance of faith is only possible with God,[64] and of the importance of grounding oneself in the faith and remaining in God’s love.[65] Peter speaks of trails that test the genuineness of one’s faith,[66] implying that a type of faith exists that is not genuine. This could be identified with the “dead faith” spoken of by James. The outcome of genuine faith is the salvation of one’s soul.[67] He also speaks of faith as being in that which is not seen,[68] as Paul does.[69] Peter relates obedience[70] to faith and hope,[71] and says that obedience should look like being holy in all one’s conduct, for each will be judged according to their deeds.[72] He further instructs his audience to endeavour to supplement their faith with virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love, for if these are lacking then one is unfruitful, since they have forgotten that they have been cleansed from their sins.[73] He also makes mention of the seriousness of not enduring- for those continuing in sin after receiving the Gospel, it would have been better for them never to have known than to know and subsequently abandon the truth.[74]

In conclusion, the witness of the New Testament regarding the role of faith and works with regard to salvation is consistent. In particular, the notorious conflict between James and Paul does not, in fact, exist. The confusion is due primarily to their differing use of terminology, and they actually both espouse the idea that only a faith which commits the whole person to obedience of Christ, which involves living charitably, can justify a person. Their different presentations of the relationship between faith and works in fact complement each other, and contribute significantly to the rich framework of soteriology found in the New Testament.

REFERENCE LIST:

Brown, Raymond, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Doubleday: New York, 2007)

Casciaro, Jose Maria (ed.), The Navarre Bible Catholic Letters (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2005)

Catechism of the Catholic Church (Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Citta del Vaticano, 1993)

< http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm>

(Accessed 19 October 2012)

Hahn, Scott (ed.), Catholic Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday Religion, 2009)

Hawthorne, Gerald., Martin, Ralph., Reid, Daniel. (Eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Leicester, England: Intervarsity Press, 1993)

Leon- Dufour, Xavier, S.J. (Ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969)

New Catholic Encyclopedia 2^nd Edition Volume 8, Berard Marthaler (ed.) (Washington, D.C.: Thomson Gale, 2003)

The Holy Bible Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Anchor- Yale Bible Dictionary Volume 2, David Noel Freedman (Ed.) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992)

Anchor- Yale Bible Dictionary Volume 3, David Noel Freedman (Ed.) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992)

Brown, Raymond, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Doubleday: New York, 2007)

Burtchaell, James., “A Theology of Faith and Works: The Epistle to the Galatians--A Catholic View”, Interpretation, Vol 17: Issue 1 (1963): pp. 39-47 ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. EBSCOhost (accessed October 19, 2012)

Casciaro, Jose Maria (ed.), The Navarre Bible Catholic Letters (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2005)

Catechism of the Catholic Church (Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Citta del Vaticano, 1993)

< http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm>

(Accessed 19 October 2012)

Hahn, Scott (ed.), Catholic Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday Religion, 2009)

Hawthorne, Gerald., Martin, Ralph., Reid, Daniel. (Eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Leicester, England: Intervarsity Press, 1993)

Heen, Erik., & Krey, Philip. (Eds.), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New Testament X Hebrews (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2007)

Leon- Dufour, Xavier, S.J. (Ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969)

New Catholic Encyclopedia 2^nd Edition Volume 8, Berard Marthaler (ed.) (Washington, D.C.: Thomson Gale, 2003)

The Catholic Bible Concordance Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition C.W. Lyons and Thomas Deliduka (compilers) (Steubenville: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2009)

The Holy Bible Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)

---

[1] Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 732, footnote 22

[2] He uses the noun pistis 142 times, compared to 101 times in the rest of the New Testament- Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 285

[3] Heb. 11:1. NB: Unless otherwise noted, all biblical references will be taken from RSV; furthermore, the letter to the Hebrews will be considered to be a Pauline Epistle in this paper, since it has been “long associated with Paul”- Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 410      

[4] New Catholic Encyclopaedia 2^nd Edition Vol 8, p. 592; Rom. 1:16

[5] New Catholic Encyclopaedia 2^nd Edition Vol 8, p. 592

[6] Ibid.

[7] CCC 156

[8] Jn. 14:6, emphasis added

[9] Eph. 4:5

[10] New Catholic Encyclopaedia 2^nd Edition Vol 8, p. 592; Scott Hahn, Catholic Bible Dictionary, p.498

[11] Rom. 1:5, 16:26

[12] Scott Hahn, Catholic Bible Dictionary, p.498

[13] Rom. 3:28

[14] Scott Hahn, Catholic Bible Dictionary, p. 497

[15] Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 577

[16] Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 518; Rom. 2:13, 8:33; Gal. 5:4-5

[17] Tit. 3:7

[18] Rom. 8:16

[19] Rom. 8:15

[20] Rom. 5:1

[21] Rom. 6:7; Hahn, Catholic Bible Dictionary, p.497-8

[22] Hahn, Catholic Bible Dictionary, p.498

[23] Eph. 2:8

[24] Rom. 5:17

[25] Tit. 3:5; Rom. 3:28

[26] Rom. 4:2; Eph. 2:8-9; Hahn, Catholic Bible Dictionary, p.498

[27] Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, pp. 529- 542

[28] Similarly in Rom. 3:20; Rom. 4:5; Rom. 11:6; Gal. 2:16; Gal. 3:2, 5, 10; Rom. 3:26

[29] Rom. 3:20

[30] This is further evidenced in that the first reference to “works” (Rom. 2:6), Paul is talking about human acts in general, whether good works or evil works.

[31] Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 975

[32] This idea is reinforced in Gal. 2:16

[33] Eph. 2:10

[34] Col. 1:10

[35] 2 Tim. 2:21; 2 Tim. 3:17

[36] Heb. 10:24

[37] Heb. 10:22-23

[38] Heb. 11:1

[39] CCC 1812- 1813

[40] Gal. 5:6

[41] 1 Cor. 1:3

[42] Dictionary of Paul and His Letters p. 459

[43] Jas. 2:19

[44] Jas. 2:17

[45] Jas. 2:24

[46] Jose Maria Casciaro (ed.), The Navarre Bible Catholic Letters, p. 36

[47] Rom. 2:13

[48] Jas. 1:22

[49] Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 734, Mt. 7:24

[50] Mt. 7:21

[51] Acts 26:20

[52] Jn. 16:27

[53] Jn. 13:34

[54] 1 Jn. 3:21-23

[55] 1 Jn. 5:1-3; , Xavier Leon- Dufour, S.J. (Ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p.140

[56] 1 Jn. 4:8, 20

[57] Rev. 14:12-13; Rev. 2:2, 5, 23; Rev. 2:26; Rev. 3:2-3, 11, 15-16; Rev. 19:8;

[58] Mt. 10:22, 24:13; Mk. 13:13; Lk. 21:19

[59] Rom. 5:3-4; 1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Cor. 13:7; 2 Cor. 6:4; Col. 1:11; 2 Tim. 2:12; Heb. 6:15

[60] Jas. 1:12

[61] Jn. 5:20

[62] Jn. 20:31

[63] Jude 1.3

[64] Jude 1:24

[65] 1:20-21

[66] 1 Pet. 1:7

[67] 1 Pet. 1:9

[68] 1 Pet. 1:8

[69] Rom. 8:24; 2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 11:1; cf. Jn. 20:29

[70] 1 Pet. 1:14, 22

[71] 1 Pet. 1:21

[72] 1 Pet. 1:15,17

[73] 2 Pet 1:5-9

[74] 2 Pet. 2:20-21